Hyde Park City's Planning Commission Meeting 8-6-2025

Can we wait two seconds? No. Yeah. We have two minutes.

Well, just don't see Oh, no. Before we start, we we have two minutes. I just need to go fill out my water. Hey. Go for it. I'm just saying.

Just the live stream's gonna start. Oh, and it is warm. So keeping that open, like, keep it Minutes? Anyway, that does cool it quite a bit.

K. Where's Box? There it is.

Are we just missing that, or are there others? It's split out. Is it? DJ is finishing out the year, isn't he?

No. I think he's done. He's not coming anymore.

Marcus? What? DJ finishing out the year?

Yeah. We gotta get on our quest for applicator qualifications to the new dates. I started writing notes.

Qualifications. All that is just desire to serve. Right. So By the by the president of Hyde Park.

That's it. Mhmm.

Willing to spend time?

21 years of age. So we have to make just, like, short list of what we're looking for.

So there is criteria,

and then that's it. It's a very short list of them.

Yeah. Yeah. Not hard. Sounds like like, make a procedure that we can follow something with

something very Open ceremony? Is that what we're calling it, Vy? K. Opening ceremony.

We're ready for opening exercises.

Everyone. Everyone

That's what you need done first. I know. I need to look for these types.

You don't like to drink that.

Doesn't it look like alcohol? Well, this label you actually never thought of. Read those labels.

When you go to Oregon or Washington, you know how they always offer you, like, a glass of wine that beer when you check into the hotel?

No?

Sorry. Okay. We're ready when I'm getting you on. Oh, we're

it's time? Well, this I'll tell you later. It's pretty ready. Alright.

Have you started the Yeah. Recording? Okay. So we better not say anything that we might regret. Welcome to tonight's Hyde Park Planning Commission meeting. Is the 08/06/2025. We do have a quorum, although Ned is missing. Mister Hansen. So and we do not have yet a replacement for DJ. Is that right, DJ? K. Alright. I guess I'm supposed to do the opening ceremony.

So real quick, as the meeting's kicking off, we're changing the format a smidge. So first, the call to order is, you know, the welcome to the meeting. Hi, everybody. And then we're gonna do a roll call. And so the commission chair will just point to everybody and say, you're here. You're here. You're here for the record. You're here. You're here. Well, but these are names. Oh, okay.

Are we this is okay. Well, why don't I just say, please introduce yourself, and we'll go down the line. Does that work?

Do you wanna or we could just state our names. Holly Barrett present.

Melinda Lee.

And Michael Moose. That works. We're all here. K. Is commissioner Hansen joining us by via VTC?

No. He sent an email that he will be completely out of touch.

And I tried to get my email back up. I've gotten ahold of the company, but had to leave a message because that's all they had for me. K. But because I got the new phone and it doesn't I don't get any emails from the city anymore. K. So alright. So I'm responsible for the opening ceremony. We're used to having a prayer or thought, and the flag ceremony, is that still Yeah. Still the deal? Okay.

What I do.

Alright. Well, I will say a quick prayer. Our father in heaven, we're grateful to stay for our many blessings. We're grateful for the city we live in, this lovely valley. We're grateful for our neighbors. We pray that we might be wise as we go through the the business dealings of land use here for our city. We pray for guidance, and we pray that we might be ever mindful of the citizens here and the the things that will work best for our community, not only in the near term, but also in the long term. We're grateful for these blessings, and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. 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. We'll now go over and review the minutes from July 16, which seems like forever ago. But let me open those up. Did everyone have a chance to review those?

I did.

Holly, do you need time to review them? I'm good. K. And I looked at them also. Anything that we need to add or or amend?

I don't have anything.

K. Alright. Nor do I. So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from 07/16/2025 as they have been written and presented to us.

I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? No? All those in favor of approving the minutes from 07/16/2025 as they're written, Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Unanimous. Planning staff report. Is there anything to report, planning staff?

So this is the portion of our meeting where we would tell you that we're looking for a another planning commissioner and the process by which we're going to do that. We're in that process and hopefully, we'll we'll have someone appointed.

K.

Soon so that we can continue to have a quorum for our meetings coming up. Right.

Okay. So the only things that I can think of that are required are Hyde Park resident and desire to serve the community. It's

Is is the age 21, or is it 18?

Mhmm. Specify what the future is our planning commission of our.

So okay. Well, we look forward to finding out who the city council approves as the next member of the planning commission. K. And then action items, I don't see any action items that are that are due this week or this meeting.

So as a just further clarification with this agenda, the all the action items in the teacher is gonna be things that need to be voted on. So anytime there's a vote that needs to be taken, those will be action items or if it's public hearing, etcetera. Any discussion items, we aren't necessarily looking for a vote. It's just things that we're gonna talk about. So Action items also need to be in the,

announcement the public announcement public notice. I'm sorry. Mhmm. Is that correct?

Yeah. They'll be posted with the agenda. If it's a public hearing, we'll post the public hearing separately as required by the state.

Okay. Do do items that require action, do they have to be on the public notice?

No. They have to be included as an action item on our agenda, which is posted to the public notice board. If it's a hearing itself, that gets a separate special notice with the ten day of the year. Public hearing is something separate because, yeah, that doesn't require any action. That's just

okay. Alright. Discussion items. Land use land use code updates. I'm guessing this is part of that

other

Your attachment. Attachment that was in

Inbox.

K. Is there a way we can put that up on the Yep. I'm gonna do it right. Screens. Trying to make it bigger. By the way, thank you all those who attend. Welcome. Some call trainings. We recognize our member of the council, city council. I'm sorry. I don't know your name. Sharon Ate. Welcome. And even welcome those who have to be here. We're glad you're here.

Anyone watching the live stream? Yeah. Is there anyone watching the live screen? We've got a few. I've got some That's good. Messages about opening your can maybe.

I loved it. Alright.

Report back to them. So

discussion item number one.

Discussion item number one is for your suggestions moving forward, kind of a yes or no situation. Right now, Marcus, maybe you can help me explain this better. Yeah. I'll take this one.

So currently in the Hyde Park City code, we adopted a new procedure for subdivisions if they're single family or multifamily only based on the requirements of the state a couple years ago. We've run into a situation where we set the development review committee, which is a staff body, fire department, building code, planning, etcetera, and they'd review all the plans. When we did this change, that body was made a land use authority, meaning they had final approval for final plots for those types of subdivisions. The problem we have is having a required open to public meeting for any land use authority has made that a real bottleneck for the plan approval process. When Mac started working here, she pointed out that it's pretty typical in the places where she's worked in the past to just have to be a staff review not bound to a public meeting, which makes the reviews a lot more timely and a lot more thorough. And so code change number one is modifying this land use table to remove the DRC from any position of land use authority and replace that with, for example, like the zoning administrator or different bodies so that the DRC can continue to be a staff board that can meet when is able and prudent for all the members to do the reviews and not waiting for the public notice meetings.

So does that make the zoning administrator does that give him a requirement or her a requirement to have a public meeting when they take over that responsibility?

Not necessarily. We have to dig into that a little bit more.

I mean, it sounds like anyone who's part of the land use authority needs to have open meetings.

Right. Well, you have to do the open meetings when it's a board. But if it's a single person, the zoning administrator has land use authority for other things too. We've never had to call a public meeting for the zoning administrator to do, like, a boundary line adjustment or these smaller things that have been their responsibility in the past. But that is a good clarification that we can make for these

large items of larger importance, we'll call them. And, well, if they're if they're that large of importance, should it be one person, or should it be a board or a commission?

The only one we wanna change is for the final plat and minor subdivision. Right. That's the only one where the DRC serves as land use authority. So that would change from the DRC to the zoning administrator, would be the land use authority. The recommending body would be the DRC, and then the reviewing body would be planning staff or city staff like some of the other applications.

I'm just looking at what we have in some of the other positions here.

Can you make ours a little bigger at all? Can you do Let's see. I know. I've done it at home, but I didn't know if that had the plus minus on it. Is that hopeful, or you need a little more? Oh, like, at the bottom, doesn't it have the plus minus?

Yeah. But it's

Can you hear me now? Yeah. But that table is still tiny anyway. Go Okay. That's fine. Get better. That's fine.

So that's the only one for final plat that they will in minor subdivision

It is. That wants to

But you don't believe that is of significant importance that it needs to come to the planning commission?

No. It can't. For single family homes and townhouses, it can't come to to well, it could come to planning commission. It just can't go to city council anymore per state code.

Am I Is that per state code now? Yes. Okay. So when somebody brings in maybe I'm confused here. But when somebody brings in a development That's a preliminary plat. Preliminary plat. Approve that. We still approve that for townhouses and Yes. Single family. Okay. Mhmm. I I just didn't hear about that. It's the final plat

that we don't approve.

Which the final plat is more or less just a formality. Right. You've approved everything through final plat. So that's where the bottleneck happens. Because now every time we use DRC, which we use them this morning to evaluate a rezone, and we'll use them for site plan approval every time the DRC meets. Right now, because they're a land use authority, we have to have that public meeting with notice. And so we can't do even if we wanted to meet with part of them, we would still have to have that public meeting. This would just provide us the flexibility to even call a last minute meeting and go, hey. We really need some feedback on this final set of plans, and we'd really like to get this taken care of this week. Is everybody available? We could do that, where right now, we have to

it has to be within the time frame. Got it. So What is the time frame it has to be finished in? Then

Is there a time frame? Like, how long do they have to give notice?

No. I think that's forty eight hours, isn't it? Or seventy two. Twenty four. Twenty four hours? It is difficult when we have

We have to create an agenda. Yeah.

Or sometimes it's like, hey. I got twenty minutes here. I got twenty minutes there. Let's loop everyone together. Right. Sometimes it's the same day. They were setting up, you know. So it

it's just easier for us as staff to not have to follow all that government regulations when we just wanna get together to say,

oh, this plan is good. It meets the code, or this needs more work. Let's take some time next week and have a more detailed meeting to figure this out.

I know that these final plats also require the planning someone on the planning commission's signature. Would it be and and I know that sometimes they've been delayed because they've been approved, but I haven't been here or, you know, I've had to been be called in and say, hey. We need you to come in and sign this. Would it just be easier to approve it here and then sign it and then send it on? Does that make sense?

Well, it's not so much removing DRC as the body that approves the final plots. It's removing DRC as a land use authority altogether because we use them for so many other applications that their status as a land use authority is actually the hang up. It's not about the final plat. Right. That's not that's not why we wanna change this. No. But I yeah. The DRC having to have an agenda noticed meeting every time we wanna approve a site plan or something.

Versus a staff review. So we've we had this. Like, a few years ago, the DRC was more like a staff review, but then the things they started voting on things. And so then we started looking into the code, and they were saying, well, we're acting like a land use authority, so then you need to be a land use authority and abide by all of those rules that go along with being a land use authority. But, really, it is just a staff review. It's it's calling in the experts at a roundtable to just say, hey. This is what I saw. This is what I these are my concerns. I don't have any concerns with this. And so you've got kind of that roundtable of experts to look at everything, and they still wanna look at everything. And Marcus even we talked about it this morning at DRC because I represented the planning commission there this morning. And he even said, like, as we go forward, do you wanna just should we just send these things out via email and you just approve them separately individually? And everybody said no. Like, it works better to be at a roundtable because sometimes something that someone else brings up rings a bell for someone else, and that's really helpful. So they still want to gather as a body and talk about these things together, but it is more of a staff review. Like, currently, we have these like, this morning, the meeting is at 09:30, but we get together at nine and talk about them amongst ourselves as staff and experts. And then the applicant comes in at 09:30, and we sort of just regurgitate or summarize what we talked about. And so it's really that first half hour that's the most beneficial and helpful. And so what they're doing is they're just cutting it to that, and then they'll just issue a a staff review. Is that what it's staff review? We craft our staff report based on the comment. Sorry. A staff report that goes out to the applicant and to the city so everyone would have access to it. City councils, planning commission, everyone on staff at the city gets the same report. So everybody's working with the same thing. It's just taking away them acting formally. It's it becomes more of a staff review than a land use authority because there's a lot that goes along with being a land use authority. And so it's kinda gone back and forth over the years. I like this move a lot better than having it as an official land use authority, having worked in the city.

Well, it's Do you think it would streamline things more having it be this way? Yeah. I agree. K.

So let me make sure I understand the rec the recommendation. That is to change the line on final plat slash minor subdivision to read DRC zoning administrator zoning administrator.

Is that correct? It will be city staff as the reviewing body, the people who take in the application. The recommending body will be DRC. DRC They'll meet and review that final would be the zoning recommendation to the zoning administrator. And, again, final plat is a formality. All the approvals are done at the preliminary plat stage when it comes to you folks for review. And so unless there are a whole bunch of big changes, it's a done deal usually at the end of preliminary plat.

K. I don't have an issue with that then. I mean, city staff, zone zoning administrator. No. City staff, DRC, zoning administrator. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any just further discussion on that?

No. I think that that streamlines things. K. Yeah. I like this much better. And the staff

is okay with that? It doesn't really change anything for the staff, does it? Other than the Less noticing.

They they don't have to have a open meeting. Yeah. One fewer meeting for us to post and babysit an agenda and record minutes for and everything else.

So it's Well, the minutes are recorded in the report. Right. Correct? You'll have a staff report.

Sorry. Now instead of creating formal minutes and having to adopt them and record them and post them on the public notice website, we'll just write a staff report, and that'll get emailed to everybody. And it'll be much more technical language oriented and a lot less open to public meeting oriented.

K.

Since this is a land use authority and it is posted publicly, how much of the public

comes and reviews and sits in and has an opinion? Because the DRCs that I've been a part of, I haven't seen any public input. Have you? Yeah. Generally, the DRC, we will get visits from city council members who know that it's happening. Sure. And we'll get the applicants who are on the agenda. I don't know if I've ever seen

a a a random citizen of Hyde Park come to sit in on a DRC meeting. Because, typically, they'll come and sit in once it hits planning, and then they'll come into one of the planning meetings. But I I haven't ever seen anyone at a DRC. Yeah. And it's in the middle of the day,

because that's when all of those experts are working, you know, like an eight to five job. Yeah. I've never it's only been a public land use authority for a few years. Ever since we made this change as required by state code. Yeah. So it's just been a few years, and, yeah, I've never seen anyone

from the general public at those. To make sure we weren't cutting out the public if they were actually attending. Because I'm like, I I've never seen anyone participate. I just wanted to double check. Yeah. And a lot of

participation the planning commission, I would say, gets a lot more public interaction than even the city council does sometimes because this is where all the public hearings happen. At the DRC level, there's never any type of public hearing. So even if the public showed up to view it, there's not any opportunity for the general public to get up and make just general comments about stuff. It's all just a discussion between the applicant and the city staff. K. So, yeah, even shifting it to or out of the public realm doesn't really change that public interaction either way. But we're still holding an open meeting. Right.

Opening. It's just a staff meeting. It's just a staff meeting. So just like if like, when the mayor meets with, like, these two to just go over what we're doing at the city. So the applicant will submit their project, and then the staff will go over it and say, okay. Well, this is what like, for this project to go that way, you'd have to complete these roads or you need to look into this water, make sure you get water rights. You need to make sure that you have this right of way. You need to talk to UDOT. You need to look at garbage service or whatever it is. It's it's just really technical. Yeah. It's not a matter of anyway, and most of the time, there's things that are missing. And so it's great that the staff starts with that anyway to say, okay. Well, I can't even get this to my DRC group until you submit all these missing items in the first place. And then the DRC will address, okay, for this kind of a project on this site. Right. These are the things that come to mind for us. And then And with it being sorry. With it being a staff meeting,

I mean, the public has already had the opportunity to comment on this during the preliminary plat.

No. It's before the preliminary plat, isn't it?

Yeah. So we're talking about just the final plat Right. Part of this. Yes. The So so the the public input has already happened in an early stage. There's not K. A public hearing for subdivisions like there used to be. Except we do have one in our code. Of this time. We do have one in our code. So Special.

That's one word for that. But

the public has had their opportunity to weigh in

when the public hearing is held Right. For preliminary plat. So since the final no longer goes to city council. Right? Mhmm. We're taking it from city council. So if we say no, we're not going to recommend this to city council like we have done. It's gone on to city council on their agenda anyways. City council has then decided to approve it for whatever reason. What happens in that situation? Does it still go on to the DRC like it would a city council if we have not if we don't like it, if we vote against it?

Where does it go? You're just a recommending body when you vote on anything. If you vote on our preliminary plat, you're actually the approving body.

So you It doesn't go to city council. It doesn't go to city council. K. I just wanna make sure that we're not pushing something. You're probably getting confused with development agreements. Those all go to city council. Correct?

No. I'm understanding. It's just I wanna make sure that we're not take because we do have an issue in the public right now that they feel like Hyde Park is not great with communicating big developments even though we are doing everything as we should. I just wanna make sure that by shifting this and making the DRC not necessarily an open type meeting, that we're going to get pushback for that.

Yeah. I would genuinely be surprised if the public even knew the DRC was happening right now, and that's not to speak ill of anyone. It's just it's not a widely published meeting anyway. We don't do extra noticing. There's no public hearings. It's just we put on the public notice website. We do the noticing as required by state code, but generally, people just don't know what's happening anyway. So by shifting it to a staff meeting, and I'm not even gonna use the words closed door because still everything we do is in the public eye anyway. It's just we're not actively inviting the public and saying, hey. Come watch us do this. So for us, it's not and the same thing with the staff report. The staff reports can be just as available as any copy of minutes ever would be too. Right.

K. We're just discussing this. Right? There's there's nothing else? Do we need to Yeah. So all these things,

we, as staff feel like it should be fixed and it should be changed, and so we just wanted to get the opinion of the planning commission before we spent all the time to do the legal research and the drafting and reviewing it with the city attorney. We just wanna make sure that everybody thought this was worth pursuing before we spent the energy to do it.

So K. So now we've looked at number one. What is number two? Is that just a continuation?

Number two is a clarifying move from the land use code section 12. It talks about this is the list of applications, and it says development plan review, which is something we use for commercial and industrial development. But we in code, it's referred to as site plan review. So this would clarify that the application to be applied for would be site plan review instead of development plan review. It's a change in wording so that the label of the application matches code, what we call it in code. And it still only applies to commercial and industrial? Well, your code actually says that multifamily developments are supposed to do a site plan, and then all commercial and all industrial. So this is the avenue for adding it to the list of applications that people can apply for.

K. Any any discussion on that? It's just clarifying

wording more or less. We're finding a little bit of that here and there. But when applicants come in and they want to know what to do next, and I say, well, next you need a development plan review, and they go, okay. Where do I read about that? And then I direct them to the site plan chapter, then there's confusion. And so we just wanna make our code a little bit easier to read and understand for people, and I think the wording change would help. K.

Number any other discussion? Nope. Number three?

Let's see. Amend the requirements for applying for a land use permit to include a survey and title report and an owner agent agreement, which is an owner's consent form. We have discovered most recently with a reason that will be coming to you probably next month is that the county GIS map, it does come with a disclaimer that it's not a 100% accurate and that lines may be, not exactly perfect. And that's what we've discovered with this reason that if we create the map from GIS that it's not right. We did require them to get the rezone because they were doing it by legal description instead of boundary descript or boundary. And we discovered that they had a little bit more property to their parcel than is shown on the GIS map. And so especially for reasons, especially for subdivisions, and it doesn't hurt for site plans and things of that nature to include a survey so that we can clean up our parcel boundaries and that we know exactly what land we're dealing with when we rezone something or add it or take it away from a subdivision.

K. How expensive is that for someone that's just doing something pretty minor? You know, I think of, like, the people on 200 South that had all sorts of squirrely boundaries they were trying to do to split their lot. Mhmm. If someone is just trying to split their own lot in half, like,

we're talking under 1,000 I don't know what survey prices are,

but it's not cheap and fast. That's for sure. So it can take anywhere from two to six weeks depending on what surveyor you use and depending on how complex it gets. It can be a 150 up to the highest I've seen is about 1,200. Okay. But that's something that's very, very complex. So it's it's not That's fair. Reasonable by any means. K. And as we develop, that'll help us clear up those Absolutely. Personal lines that are Especially in my park where we have a lot of gray areas.

Yeah. I look in that parcel viewer, and then I look at where the fences are. And they're not the same. Like, pins, because a lot of the new developers will do will do pins.

Those pins are sometimes inaccurate as well. So survey error, it's great.

The title report that we're asking folks for, those will list all of the easements and encumbrances that might be associated with the property. And that way, we can include those in subdivision plans and things of that nature where maybe an easement needs to be vacated or a new easement needs to be drawn up or there's an easement we don't even know about that needs to be taken care of. So the title report just gives us the clearest view of the property involved in the transaction. Are we specifying who is doing the title report? Or No. That's up to the that's up to the applicant. They can Great. They can make that choice.

Okay. Sound good? Any further discussion on number three? What was the last thing? Oops. Sorry. Oh, owner agreement. Yes. Is that something that we don't require right now?

Not a so we don't explicitly require that in our code. We wanna add it in because we've had most recently, there's been a couple instances where we've had people contacting us, telling us they're acting on behalf of a subdivision, and we've given them some information and then got contacted by different parties saying they're acting in behalf of the subdivision. And so our attorney actually recommended that we start asking for this, and so we just wanna make it a requirement instead of having to be like, hey. Maybe if you feel like it, we can just say, no. You you have to do that. If you're not the property owner, you have to provide us with a signed notarized form saying that you have their permission to act on their behalf because it just Sounds reasonable. Yeah.

Sounds legal.

Yeah. It sounds right. Sounds like it should have always been that. Right. Next. Do you wanna talk about the fee?

Yeah. Okay. So another problem that we have when we adopted this big state code update, the state was very specific that every land use application had to have a fee for it to be complete, that the city should not be accepting any sort of application until somebody has paid some money. And that means that they're vested, that we freeze the ordinances where they're at, and they start the process. The problem is in our code, we have it such that before the city staff even reviews the application, you're supposed to pay a fee. The problem that happens with that is once they've paid the fee and they're vested, we have to start the clock, and we have to start processing the application. Sometimes the application is a sheet of paper that basically says this is my application, and it's like, okay. You you haven't given us all the required documents. So then we have to press them to give us the documents, and it just ends up being very legally precarious situation to be in. So what we're doing is we would like to amend the language to say that after the city has received all of the appropriate documents, then you can pay your fee, then the city will review your complete application.

K. Yeah. My my suggestion is that no review other than for the completeness of the application should be done until

monies are received. Yep. So that's that's exactly why we want to make this change in the code. Because right now, it just says the city's gonna get your fee and your application, and then they'll start their process. And so we just wanna add some specific lines of text in there to draw some very Right. Direct boundaries of here's where your process goes and how it's going to happen. K.

And the code will freeze wherever they have a full application and the fee has been paid.

Yeah. And that's the state law that has been the state law for a really long time. So we just wanna split those separate those out in our code so they're very distinct

Check. Checkpoints. Yeah. Yep. So whoever is the person responsible to verify that the application is complete, they're the only ones that should be doing anything on that application until it's complete and monies have been paid by the applicant.

Right.

K. That makes sense to me. I don't know. We shouldn't be doing stuff. Half half half. Well, yeah, we shouldn't be Halfway. Halfway. We need to be paid for even the city needs to be paid for the services that it renders. Mhmm. So and it sounds like there could be times when it doesn't.

Yeah. And part of this, which won't come to the planning commission, is we're also doing an in-depth review of all of our fees to make sure that we're charging people the amount of money that it actually takes the city to process applications. The state obviously, we don't want to, but also the state prohibits us from charging more money than we reasonably need to cover the cost of staff review and city resources for an application. And what we're finding is with the way these new laws shake out, the amount of time that is spent on these applications, we're ending up having the city basically provide this resource to the developers that the taxpayers cost. And so we're modifying all those fees to make sure that when the developer pays for the application, they're giving enough money to the city that they're paying for the city staff to do their reviews, and so we're not having to dip into the funds for the parks and the police to offset those costs. Right.

K. Any other discussion on number four? Not from

We want to change the language of the noticing requirements throughout title twelve and thirteen to defer to state statutes for public notices. We're noticing that maybe in a couple places, we might be deficient, and in other places, we're going way too far because state statutes change, and our code has not changed that often. So we just wanna make sure that we are doing it legal and doing it correctly according to state statute. And so instead of listing our own ways that we're gonna do things, we just want code to refer back to state statute and say that we're gonna play by the rules.

Great idea.

Yeah. If we're not adding anything to state, then we don't need to write our own code. Just use theirs. In fact, is there a way we can just well, I guess you can't really take it out. Like, you just have to say notice per

state statute this. Right. Refer back to state statute. Mhmm. Yeah. And we'll still

we'll still copy and paste a handful of those guidelines to just put directly into our code, but then it makes it real easy if we need to update if the state ever updates their noticing requirements again, we can just copy and paste the same lines and amend our code to match.

I would I would minimize that. Right. Because then then you do have to change it if they change it. Right. No. The noticing page is huge. But for

we'll talk about it when we have the actual edit. Yeah. But there's a couple of specific things that I know are gonna be confusing unless we just put them in our own code so they're very transparent. K. So we'll get there when we get there.

Anything else?

Bilingual. Print numbers.

Oh, we would like to start doing some research about an instituting an overlay zone for short term rentals in Hyde Park. Right now, anybody can have one anywhere as long as they have a business license, and we would like to take the temperature of elected officials and you all and see if there's an area where short term rentals belong or if they do, in fact, belong everywhere. Are we gonna have them spread out all through town, or do we wanna keep them close to the highway? Do we not wanna regulate that at all? And

or can we regulate it more? New York City has completely taken away short term rentals. You cannot have an Airbnb.

The state won't let us go that far, but this is just like the this is the same as, like, the gravel pits and the medical cannabis. These are the ordinances we've been working on. If we have a set of rules to play by, we can kinda shape how it looks. And doing an overlay like this is one way to do it. Like, you look at places like Saint George where they were getting overtaken by these rentals. And so what did they do? They created a zone specific for the rentals to say, hey, state. Look. We allow them, but you have to come get a rezone if you want one. And so then the city council could very carefully and particularly choose where they go. And what Mikael's proposing is kind of the same thing. It'd be an overlay. So the city would basically say, if you're in this geographical location, you could get a short term rental license. If you're not in this geographical location, you have to come back to the city to say, I wanna change the boundaries of that overlay. And then the city council would have the legislative authority to say, actually, no. We don't want them there. So sorry.

No. I think this is smart. We absolutely need to regulate this What's the this.

Sorry?

I was

When you say overlay zone, I know what an overlay is. I know what a zone is, but when you use them together, it looks a little different. So what does that

so that everyone knows what that means. So the overlay wouldn't change the anybody's zoning. It would have effect on no one's zoning. It would be an added layer, if you can imagine, on top in a certain geographical area, and that layer would allow you to get a business license for your overnight accommodation for your Airbnb. So that same overlay could cover some places that are r two, some that are r four, some that are mixed use. It could be yeah. It could be a longer road. It could be a big circle based in the middle. It we would have to workshop that and figure out where it was appropriate and maybe even have a public A public hearing. A public well, a public workshop where people can come in and tell us where they think it belongs and make it make it an overlay that's crafted by the people who live here so that everybody kinda gets a say as we ride it. The sooner we do it, the better, I think, especially with our moderate income housing being at risk. I told the DRC this morning that we some of these townhouse developments in their development agreement, it says these can be used for short term rental. And so if that's what we wanna do is allow these townhouse developments to be a big short term rental development, then we can do that, or we can put an overlay like this in place saying where those kinds of things would be appropriate. So we wanna we wanna start making a plan for how we're gonna institute this and the process by which we would get input and craft it. It's gonna take some time, clearly, but it's better that we get started and go slow and do it right than wait until the last minute and

do something rushed and Well, and run into a problem. Mhmm. Do we do we have an idea of how many people are actually doing it? There's quite a few. Not just the ones who have business licenses. The other ones too.

K. We know. They don't think we know. We know.

There's We're now allowed to use you think there are. We're now allowed to use the Internet to find those places. Right? Yeah. Mhmm.

And we have

them. K. We know. How many how many are legal? Five? 10?

I think you have five now who's coming and got a business license in a fully legal.

And so those would automatic if you did if we ended up doing that overlay zone, those would be automatically included

with that overlay zone. We would include them because The legal one. You can't take away something you've already given. We just grandfather it in. But we would, yeah, we would include them. But they may be a single house, like the zone maybe here plus that one Mhmm. And that one. And that's the same way that you would get added Right. You know, if you wanted to be included in the overlay. It would be like a rezone. You would apply it to be included in the overlay, and it would be a public hearing and

the whole bit. But it would provide extra steps Yeah. Which is what so desperately is needed. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe as clarification right now, if

you wanna turn your house into a short term rental, all you gotta do is come into the city, apply for a business license, provide a site plan showing that you can provide the parking and everything else, and the city can stamp that, and you can have a short term rental.

Is there no inspection?

No. Yeah. Well, part of that is every business license has to have an inspection. Oh, okay. But I talked to the fire department and the building department today, and they said, yeah. Generally, there's not a ton of things. If it's Like a house that's functional, which is 99% of houses in the valley, there's not much they can do to shut it down. So, yeah, if we had this overlay, it would create a much better opportunity to be transparent with the public if we're first of all, when we create the overlay, but then if it's going to be amended, it gives a much more option for public opinion and city leadership discretion to approve it or not approve it.

And to put in development standards to the overlay that you have to have. Right. You know, maybe there needs to be some screening or some buffering, or maybe there needs to be quiet hours, or maybe there needs to be, you know Yeah. Whatever the community would like to craft, but I do think we need to craft something as a community. Yeah. So for example to be top of top I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I think that needs to be top of top of mind

out of everything, especially with those townhouses coming in.

We probably can't change those. Are we also

allowed to do something like Already in the development agreement. Within a certain area? Yeah. Sure. Can't have another one within a 100 and, you know, 02/1950.

Dig into state code and see where where we can begin and where we can either be more restrictive or not k. As we go. Seize. Good. Did you say we do or don't have some of the our approved townhomes that that's I did read in an upcoming development agreement that not one that's been signed. I have not reviewed all the ones that you have signed before I got here. No. I don't believe

Mike, I don't believe that we have any short term rentals in any of those develop agreements. I think Marcus

Yeah. So it wasn't in addressing the development agreement, but there was some CC and Rs from one of those mixed use developments that came in. And it said that, yeah, any of these can be used as short term rentals. Luckily, it's one of the ones that we haven't approved yet. And so we were like, hey. You gotta you gotta take that out of your CC and Rs. We don't want that. But that's an application that you'll be seeing probably in the next month or so. K. That's one of the final final plat slash plans that's coming.

Alright. Number seven.

Number seven is pretty easy. It's just in one place of the subdivision code. It needs an amendment to differentiate the preliminary plat and final plat approval process for the single family home and multifamily subdivisions. Right now, at the very end of title 13 where it talks about how many review cycles these applications get, it reads that all subdivision applications only get four review cycles. And I just wanna add the language in there that that four review cycles is for single family home and townhouses. Commercial subdivisions and other kinds of subdivisions can have more than four review cycles. So it's I thought it was in more places than that, and after review, it's not. It's just in one place in there. So we would just bring that Okay. As a correction.

Any discussion on number seven? No, sir. Number eight.

Number eight is one that we've I don't know if this commission worked on it a ton. I know Melinda did back when she worked with the city. So in Utah land use law, we're talking about what a person can and can't use their property for. There's these things called conditional use permits, which are very problematic. They basically what people think it means is you can you may be able to do this, but if we do want to not allow you, then you you're not gonna get to. But, really, what it means is, yeah, you can do it, and we'll maybe see if we can put some conditions on it. Reasonably

mitigate.

Yeah. And so in reality, conditional use requirements are it almost feels like a hoax. Like, you know, the state has it as this option, but, really, it means we just have to tell people yes anyway. And so this is the first on our list of attack attacking the conditional use requirements in the city's code, trying to eliminate as many of them as possible and clarify the land use table. For this specific instance, we're looking at ADUs where the state has already made ADUs a very available option statewide for development. We would like to propose that we remove the conditional use permit requirement for detached ADUs in the city's code. Not attached? Not both? So attached is already permitted. Oh, okay. We the state already said, yeah. We only have it. Those are allowed, period. Every everywhere you can build a house, you can build a second unit attached to it. And so what we're saying is we'd like to do something similar for the detached ADUs. And potentially, we could use this to leverage as part of our compliance for moderate income housing because we would like to amend our moderate income housing plan in the coming year as well. So this could work in tandem with that.

I have a separate sort of related question. When we were talking about our gravel pits, the on-site gravel pits, was that gonna be a conditional use, or what kind of permit was that gonna be? Different That's the temporary. Different. Not a CUP. Correct. Category. K. The different.

The CUP goes until it's

yeah. Yeah. It runs with the land. It runs with the land. It can change from owner to owner and It's temporary. It does not. To show that you're not gonna approve a conditional use, you have to you have to put forth findings of fact that there are even mitigating circumstances that can be overcome with certain conditions. And I think the solution for the ADUs is to, put that in development standards instead. You could do something like detached ADUs have to have a deed restriction that they can't be rented overnight, or they can only be rented overnight if they're in the overlay zone, or they can't or they can be used for overnight accommodations all you want. We we would put that in the development standards for the ADU as opposed to having to have a public hearing for con or a public meeting for conditional use permits every time somebody wanted to build a detached ADU. I think it would encourage those a little bit more, which would help with our moderate income housing plan to change a strategy to add those in

and

would remove the burden of that conditional use permit. Just just as an example then. Phil, who did it at ADU Kelly. For his son. Yeah. But if we get rid of the conditional use permit, then he doesn't even need to come to us. He just brings the plan to you. And as long as it meets the development requirements, he can build it. Just like anyone else would be able to build an ADU Mhmm. You know, an outbuilding on their on their property. Correct.

Yeah.

The flip side of that As long as it meets the development standards.

Right. Now the flip side of that is mister Cowley in building that got a conditional use permit. And so now if the city decides, oh, we wanna pull back our ADU design our development standards to restrict them a little more, Phil can say, you already gave me a CUP. Whoever moves into this house next, they can keep using this for whatever they want, and it's gonna be a legal, valid, detached ADU forever now because we already granted the CUP. Right. And that's the other problem with the CUPs is they stick around forever. So creating something that can be regulated with a development standard gives the city a lot more leeway if, you know, in twenty years we realize, oh, that was a mistake. We need to pull this back a little bit, and then we can start regulating them.

K. Any other questions on number 8? 9.

9. Do you wanna talk about that one, or do you wanna see? Okay. I noticed when I am approving building permits that the r two zone does not include a lot coverage maximum. So right now in the r two zone, you can build you cover the whole thing if you want to. Where all of our other zones do come with a lot coverage max, a percentage, r two just doesn't have one. And the plans that I was approving also show the it led to a lot of discussion because these plans were for retaining wall in the setback and in the public utility easement. And right now in our ordinances, there's not a lot of clarification about where you can put your accessory structures. Like it like, in the city right of way? Not it not in the city right of way. In the public utility easement. Right? Everybody's got that 10 foot public utility easement around the edge. Oh, yeah. They wanted to sign a waiver saying they knew that if the city needed to get in there, that the wall would be torn down, then we would not put it back up. But the city would be the ones tearing down the wall and paying for that. Right? Right. So the second part of that is redefining the setbacks and the easements, maybe even to clarify what can and can't go in there. Sometimes the word structure isn't super clear. And Marcus says the zoning administrator has to interpret

code, which is Depends on your mood that day.

Right? Hilarious.

So we just we wanna revisit that the math that has gone into the other zones to come up with their lot coverage and apply that same math to the r two zones so it has a lot coverage maximum. Is it is it also a stormwater issue? I mean, we don't

want these nonpermeable surfaces everywhere. We need water to soak into the ground. Yes, ma'am. And so I I mean, it's gotta be that too. Right? Because we had someone else up here, my neighborhood that wanted to add another shed. You know, he's got a big he's got a garage on his house. He has a separate garage, wants to build another one in the backyard. And what stopped him was that lot coverage. Like, he would have had too much.

And that's what's proposed for this lot in R 2. There's the retaining walls in the front and the back. There's a pickleball court that goes all the way to the corner. It's mostly covered. And so when I brought that up, I said we there's no lot coverage maximum for R 2, and R 2 is a highly used zone. And so we probably need to put something in place.

K. I like it. Great.

It's for maximum lot coverage. Yes. K. Any other comments, questions?

No, sir.

Alright. That ends the discussion, but it doesn't really end the discussion because there's some more things you wanna talk to us about. We're gonna go back to the agenda. The future items.

Future items. Is that you, or is that me?

Alright. So these are things that we want to come and talk about in the future and we'd like to have on future agendas. So first is time limits on approvals. Right now, we have different time limits for the approvals depending on which zone you're in and what kind of application you're doing, and we just wanna clean that up, like, a lot and make it really easy for people to know and understand, like, hey. If we approve your subdivision, that means the city wants you to build it, and you better start building it within a certain amount of time or else you gotta come and start your approval process over again again because our ordinances may have changed, the rules may be different, the zoning code might be updated, and so that's

the idea behind that one. Okay. Which I mean, it's partly, like, on Wolfpack Way where there's been a thousand townhomes

Oh, yeah.

Approved. Nothing started.

But

yeah. Yeah. That's the main reason for it. Because now since all those have been approved, we've updated that ordinance twice, and I'm sure we would really like all those plans to come back to the city and start over under the new code that we really like, but the MXD has a really long, like, approval. Like, once you're approved, you can sit on that thing for, like, a year before you have to do anything. And so we just wanna get we wanna get them all synchronized, and we wanna get them all very clear so we can point to them and say, hey. You've got one month to start your construction and get your infrastructure permit in, or else we're gonna cross you off the list and you gotta start over.

K. I like it. And then would they so let's say they don't meet that requirement, they don't dig in a month, then do we start their application over and it has to go towards the whatever the code is

at that time? Like, where where does that fall? Yeah. I mean, the city wouldn't necessarily initiate the application. We just wait. And then whenever they come in to say, hey. We're ready to pull our permits, we would say, oh, guess what? You're ineligible. It's fired. Resubmit your concept plan or your preliminary site plan, and let's have the public hearing again. I mean, they So they have to start out all the way over. Wonderful. Yeah. So Wonderful. Right now, it's it's all over the map for the different zones. We're gonna standardize it, make it easy to find. Great. K. Next one is our war on conditional use permits.

Right. We already talked about that one. Yeah. You already talked about that one. So Need any more talk on that one? Coming soon to a planning commission agenda near you. K. Next is the I did see there was a note that was in the in the folder. It can It was newly submitted sometime this afternoon.

It's fine. It's just from me Oh, is dating my hatred of CPUs. That's all. CUPs. CUPs. What did I say? CPUs. That's how old I am. We like CPUs. We do like CPUs. It's just my hatred of conditional use permits is basically what it is. Well, there you go. And Omega Ryan doesn't like him either. So Yeah.

Alright. C. What

c is a continuation of where we left off with the, you know, the transition zone, mixed use zone, buffering and screening from existing residential, we just need to bring that back and keep the momentum going to finish up those code modifications and develop standards. Did you have anything else to add for that one?

No. K. I will tell

you. And then last but not least is all of you all the planning commissioners are required every year to do the open and public meetings act training. It's a video you watch. There's a little certificate you should get when you're done with it. I'll do it twice. Great. So that means Wanna remind everybody, when you finish that training, you have to send us the certificate so we know you've done it. If you need We have to do land use one zero one every year. There's there's lots of trainings

supposed to happen. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Trying to make sure we keep track of all.

So that one's not necessarily, like, gonna come back on an agenda. We just wanna let you guys know.

It should be submitted. It should be a reminder on there every month until Yeah. Probably.

So if you don't remember where to find that training, if you lost the link, contact Colette. She can get it to you. And then when you finish it, you have to send us the certificate saying that it's done. Is it not on CivicLink? Is it through CivicLink or no? Mm-mm. That's there's a different one. Okay.

So, yeah, just let us know. K. Why don't you just email us that then? Email that out to everybody.

K. That'd be great.

Yes. There was a time I thought it was spam. Looking at those last

four items, take off the last one, d. Sorry. I've got it here. She's already removed in the screen. Is there any that you believe needs to be of of the higher priority than the other ones?

CUP. CUP.

CUPs?

Yep. I think they're ridiculous. Okay. We don't get that many. We can't buy. Or do we? We don't we haven't gotten many. I think the last one we got was for an ADU a couple years ago. Yeah. Like, I agree. Like Was it get rid of them, but it's not, like, they're coming in every week. No. That was a different one. What's the thing that comes in the most?

So Wing limit? In my opinion,

this is just an opinion, we probably ought to get that buffer transition zone thing put pretty high on the list. We had a good path we were going down, and then we got busy hiring a new city planner, and everybody was going on vacation for the summer. So we just need to get back to where we were and finish get it over the finish line. Oh, like that residential transition zone with the starter home idea? Or Yeah. So that and then in addition, we wanted to revisit the, like, screening requirements in the mixed use zone. Okay. To kind of try to mesh those to make it more cohesive.

Yeah. I mean, you guys are the ones that know what's Yeah. What's coming up. I yeah. I because I don't like CEPs either, but we don't get that many. If we don't get that many, it's not prevalent.

I believe c c number letter c commercial and mixed use buffer zone is the transition zone. K. This should be number one.

Sounds good. So

that's my personal,

but other people have other ideas. No. I agree with that. If we don't get very many conditional use, I'm good.

Oh. So I don't know if we can have it ready that fast. Yeah. They'll have to work come up with the draft. Great.

Well, alright. Any other subjects that need to be brought up? No. Alright. Any comments?

So sorry. Maybe you can explain just a little bit. When you talk about taking away the like, that CUP, and you you said because that runs with the land, and you call them development standards. So where's that? Did you say that's recorded with that parcel?

So the development standards would come with

Or the overlay zone.

The permit itself or the ADU.

So we would For whatever

for whatever CP you're trying to Specifically, we're talking about the CUPs for ADUs. Yeah. But in the future, before we took the CUP option away from something else, we would come up with the development standards to replace possibly any of the conditions that

could arise if we needed to mitigate. Yeah. So how does that work? Let's say I start I start renting out my basement and then we sell our home. Can the next person automatically rent out the basement, or do they have to start that process over again at the city?

No. Once once you have

they would come in for a new business license. But we'd already be in that overlay zone. Yes. Because we would be allowed,

and you would just start the permit process through the business license option where you would get the inspections, and then we would have to review yours of course, that comes with the site plan to show where you're parking, etcetera, etcetera. So kind of start over. I mean, they have to reshow all that. Well, they would have to they would have to get that business license and start from scratch there, which would include that site plan.

Okay. And copy up. Charging Tucker rent.

Sure. He does. He just asked when he gets a car. I'm like, show me the money. Food food and board at this point. Like, it's

Alright. Well, we've been it feels like we've been gone for a long time, but we appreciate all the work that the staff has done since we've met last. It feels like you've been really busy looking at new ideas and ways we can make things easier and more streamlined and efficient and clearer to those who want to do things in Hyde Park. So Thank you. That's good. Thank you very much for doing that. Alright. Anything else?

I motion to adjourn.

K. I second. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye.

It's not what's name. We have

approval. Majority ruled on that one. We need to do the YouTube one first.