Planning Commission 7.16.2025

Looks like between my tires.

Cutting someone. That's the only way.

Oh.

Are we ready?

Almost. Oh, okay.

You look like you're waiting for me,

Lord. It's like between my tires.

You're good. That's just the light stream starting. Was that Holly? What I heard? No. No. Was that someone out there?

But Holly has not joined yet. That's okay. We have a forum so we can start this nice start up morning. Text Holly or anything?

Do you okay. Alright. Welcome, everyone, to the planning commission meeting for Hyde Park City. Today is the 07/16/2025. We do have a quorum we'd like to excuse David Nielsen and Holly Baird. Hopefully, Holly will join us on online. We'll see if we can get ahold of her and make sure she has the the Zoom address. Alright. We'll start with a prayer or thought

and the pledge of allegiance, and I've got commissioner Lee as the person doing that. Anything else at that? Alright. I'll pray. Our father in heaven, we are so thankful to be here and to live in Hyde Park and to have the freedoms that we do. We thank thee for the mountains and the rivers and the fresh air that we have. We thank thee for good friends and neighbors and helpful people and those who are willing to work at the city and run for office. We thank thee for our state leaders and our national leaders and pray for leaders worldwide. We especially pray for thy help this night as we consider the needs of our community and pray that we can be enlightened and have clarity of mind to make decisions that are best for the city as a whole. Please guide us in all that we do. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Excellent. 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. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Next thing we have is to to review the minutes and and do the approval. Has everyone had a chance to to look at them? We didn't have a meeting last two weeks ago because of

Fourth of July?

No one was interested in having one. Lack of form. Let's go. We had we didn't have enough business, actually, to do. And so this is from 06/18/2025. Any questions or or corrections that we need to worry about?

I didn't see any. I already submitted a minor one. Just had to add my last name.

K. Alright. Then if there's no comments, we can go on with the approval portion.

So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from 06/18/2025.

One sec at that. Alright. We have a first and a second. Is that no. That's ours. She's not alone. Yep. K. All those in favor of approving the minutes from 06/18/2025 as they are, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Passes. Alright. The next thing on the eye on our agenda is that we have a couple of public hearings we need to take care of. First is for a new ordinance for gravel pits. And then after that, we'll do a new ordinance for medical cannabis. And should that be medical cannabis dispensing facilities? Or

Yeah. Probably. K.

Alright. Marcus, can you introduce the the first one, the gravel pits?

Yes. I can introduce this. So as we discussed at the previous meeting, the state of Utah heavily regulates large scale gravel mining operations as a critical resource. And so there's a lot of protections in state code that make it difficult to have a gravel pit. What is not as heavily regulated is if there is a development up on the bench that wanted to harvest some gravel and then redistribute it in the community or to other places, that was not as heavily regulated by the state. So this ordinance attempts to do that. It outlines rules for when a project or development wants to harvest gravel materials at their site. It restricts the use of those materials to the site, and they cannot take them for sale outside of the project area. There's a permit that would be required. We have not created that permit yet, but it will be need to be created by the time the city council approves this ordinance. And after a year, it comes back up for review and reapproval by the planning commission. And if it is found that the temporary gravel pit is in violation of the ordinance, the renewal cannot be granted.

K. Alright. So we will then open up the the forum to the public hearing. And this, again, is a public hearing on the gravel pits. Just real quick. Is this up there?

I've got a question. Don't we currently have developer doing that? Yes. We do. But we His approval was to use it for his own division?

That's correct.

So this is a ordinance to allow him to

This is for future

future developments. So somebody else comes in here and wants to haul it off somewhere else. They're not allowed to. No. They're not allowed to. This ordinance allows what is happening

right in that one.

Mining and use within the within the development. And, you know, buy it. Buy it. Yes. Good. That's oh,

yeah. Did did you get your name on the record?

Dain Graeger?

Yeah. That's Dain. He's a he's the regular.

B r a a e g g e r.

We're grateful for him. If Thane didn't come, a lot of times, nobody else would come. There'd be nobody here. So we're grateful for Thane's participation and attendance. Alright. Is there any other comments or questions in the public hearing on the gravel pits, the new ordinance for gravel pits? And we should say temporary gravel pits because it is a temporary thing. Alright. I will close the public hearing. And before we open up the one for medical cannabis distribution facilities, we'll have Marcus introduce us to that ordinance proposed ordinance. Mhmm.

So this ordinance is an attempt to get ahead of a problem that is starting to rear its head in the valley. A medical cannabis pharmacy also is something that has strict regulations within state code. There is some leeway for the cities to implement other regulations, but not a lot. So to go through this is kind of the same idea. We can't prohibit them outright, but if we draw a box for them to play in, then they have to stay within the bounds of the box. So this solely regulates medical cannabis pharmacies. This isn't for production facilities or growing facilities, anything like that. This is just for a pharmacy. I did speak with the city attorney, and he is going to be working up a draft for production facilities for us as well. Although I think, Melinda, you had mentioned

in speaking with a representative in the USDA that crop doesn't do quite well up here, so that might not be something we have to worry about. And a lot of people have tried it. So I guess you still need something on the books, but a lot have tried it and lost a lot of money. Yeah.

And so some highlights is with this ordinance. There was a lot of questions at the last meeting about can the facilities be limited, how can they be limited. In the code, the Utah State Code, it's you can't really limit them based on, like, per capita thing or per capita population or anything else, but you can control the spacing and how far apart they can be, and that's your controlling mechanism. And so that's what this code is based around. At the last meeting, it was talked about the spacing that our attorney had put in here and if that could be extended. It cannot be extended anymore because of that's how state code works. So the numbers in here are the limits within state code. The measurements, I there was some clarification added. The measurements are taken from the entrance of the pharmacy to the boundary of the nearest community location or residential zone. So that's how you determine the spacing from the facility to wherever you're measuring it from. There's a provision added to restrict the hours of operation to be within the bounds of the noise ordinance, so that's allowed. And then there was a concern about signage and advertising. There's a quite robust section in state code that limits what they can and can't do already, so we just added a reference to that section of state code to point them to the advertising restrictions there. Okay. And that is

the ordinance. Alright. Then I will open up the public hearing for the cannabis ordinance. Cannabis it's really the pharmacy. Medical Cannabis pharmacy ordinance. Hi. Welcome back. Thank you.

Amanda Ralphs, do you need my address? No? No. K. Because I forgot my glasses again. I question. It can't be in a residential zone. Correct? Correct. And is there a part in the code, I didn't see it, that limits how far it can be from another cannabis pharmacy so that you don't have them, like, the high concentration of them and we have, like, six in a row? Not that there's gonna be six in a row in high part. Not too bad. But is there a way to add one so that you don't have overpopulation over concentration of them? K. You can you you just ask the question. We take notes. And then after the public hearing is closed Then okay. Then we'll respond to whatever questions you have. Like, can cannot be put in there. I don't know if it's legal just so you don't have overconcentration of it. But then then my other question was I it didn't know residential. K. K. Otherwise, I thank you for it. It. Thanks,

Amanda. Brian Cox. I would say that in my discussion with other counterparts in Northern Utah, some of which did not have a code, They really wasn't expecting it when someone applied for a business permit, and they couldn't recover. So I like how Marcus put it. It's laying the ground rules if they come in. And let's I think the city should be wise about how we can't outlaw. So how you administrate it through code is extremely important. Not have a business come in and have to wait with the city.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to make a comment? Alright. Then I will close the public hearing for the cannabis pharmacy ordinance, and we're gonna go back to as a as a planning commission, we'll go back to the temporary gravel pits and discuss that and open that up for discussion amongst ourselves. Any comments?

I don't have a problem with it. I don't yeah. I'm not I don't have strong feelings about this. I well, I guess I do have one. Sorry. A clarification point, I guess. We're allowing these temporary ones. Are are we able to say no one can have a permanent one ever? I mean, is that what we're saying by not saying about the others?

We're not, but they have to meet the But there's a state. The land use table says where you can do it and where you can't. Okay. Depends on the zone. So we already we already regulate the permanent ones.

State does. Right? But the state does for us. Okay. The the gravel

people have been working very hard the past few sessions to get some new rules set up for themselves. And as far as I understood it, this past session, they had the gravel pits declared, like, pretty much untouchable But it could be already this thing because they gave them this new designation. But because of that designation, making a new one, you have to go get the same type of designation, and the process is quite lengthy in the state code. And so the advice that, the chairman got from the state ombudsman was the regulation's pretty heavy on the state side. The city should probably worry about something like a temporary gravel pit more than you would worry about a full scale gravel production facility.

That's all I have.

Alrighty. Do you have any comments or questions?

Overall, I I don't have a problem with it. The only two things I thoughts I had was the reclamation plan. It says to take it back to a similar condition, but I could I could see the case where they're they're contouring the land to try to make that best for the subdivision. So that might be a different contour than than the original. So there seems like there'll be a loophole form to be able to get approval to make it so the development need what the development needs are not. Because I'm just thinking what if you have a steep slope and there's good gravel in there and you're gonna melt you know, you're gonna mine that all out. You don't wanna take it back to a steep slope. You wanna make it gradual. So you can put your houses in there. So there needs to be maybe some kind of a just making sense what I'm trying to say. Yeah. But I thought it was in here where it said you'd either take it back to a similar landscape or a new

use, like a new zone or something like

It's under number

said plan shall be

Developers shall be required to reclaim the site to substantially similar conditions that exist existed previous to the gravel pit or to another allowed use in the zone. Yeah. That that's the caveat that I thought would cover that. Yeah. The only difference the only thing that I would say is that the the developer

Or could they ask for a rezone?

I don't wanna say would never do it, but would be they wouldn't want to mine further down than what their plans are for for those lots. If they're taking it out of lots that are already planned, you wouldn't wanna dig further down because then you're gonna have to compact the soil again so that you can build a house there. Because now it's disturbed earth, and it takes a whole lot more to Mhmm. To build a house. So I guess the other other use allowed use would be the house building. So you could you could

contour the soil to whatever you need to to build a house there. Yeah. Have we sorry. Have we specified what zone these are allowed in? No. Or we've said any zone? Like, tell me they wouldn't have to apply for a rezone to residential to then build on it. Like, are they asking for that rezone in the first place to go from, let's say Does say a one to r six or something? Approve

development or subdivision.

So whatever those are allowed on, then they're not allowed on Right. So it's not that somebody could just go set up a temporary gravel pit whenever they wanted. It's right there the very first sentence in conjunction with an approved development or subdivision plan. Okay. So we're assuming or requiring that if a temporary gravel pit gets set up, it's gonna go with a subdivision plan. So in reality, if you you what you're probably gonna see is up on the bench, there's a parcel that's zoned r two, and the developer comes and says, well, I wanna excavate at this hillside, and I'll harvest the gravel to put his landscaping material or create road base for my roads. And then I'm gonna put four houses over the top of where the hill used to be. And that's really where you would see this put into place. Right. So it keeps the same zone. Right. So within the zoning, you're allowed to have those houses, so that becomes an acceptable replacement as part of the reclamation plan.

And, apparently, this saves if you have the equipment, it saves a lot of money

rather than bringing in Do you? Lawn or dirt. You also have to quality of the gravel problem? Yeah. You also have to kind of have somebody around who understands soils and engineering for if you're gonna use it for structural fill or something for for, like, a road base. What we saw with well, that's not important. We can talk about that another time. K. I guess another question I have

is is this a little too vague under number three when we use the term off-site and development area? I mean, I I would interpret that to mean the developers land, but is that a little too vague, or is that gonna cover that? Somebody

No. The site is all the all the bench. No. It would be restricted to whatever's on their site plan that they're proposing because that is their

site. So, honestly, this is likely to be used for rendezvous.

100%.

So I can And that's a huge site plan. Mhmm. But they won't use roads. What did that say? They're not gonna use roads outside of that? They have to use their own roads too. Roadways within the development.

Right. So not only are they restricted to keeping the materials in theirs within their site, but they can only use their own roads or temporary roads that they're going to build within the site to transport the materials. Okay. So we're shouldn't be having those massive trucks exiting, doing a loop around the neighborhood, then coming back. That's exactly what this is prohibiting.

Yeah. Do you have any other thoughts?

I did wanna point out one thing. At the previous meeting, it was mentioned that we wanted to put a restriction that had to be 500 feet from property line and then from any dwellings. And one of the commissioners wanted to add in when they came in for application, it would be Renewal? Like, or renewal. That would still apply. And so there if there were new buildings that had been permitted, then it would apply there. And our attorney said, no. You can't do that. Yeah. But you could say when they come in for their first permit, if there's any existing new building permits, you could draw the line at those. So it's kind of like when somebody applies for a subdivision, we freeze the codes at the time of application. It'd be the same instance here. So even if the developer came in and said, yeah. We've got four lots starting in phase one, and we're gonna continue our gravel operation, so I'm here to renew for phase two. We couldn't say, ah, but you got four houses right there. Because we would be looking at it from the time that they applied very first.

I got it. Alright. Any other questions or comments? K. I'll make a motion to forward this to the city council with a favorable recommendation. I second that. K. We have a motion. We have a second. Any other further discussion? Yeah. Just letting them

decide what fees to put in the schedule.

Yes. So that is on our list of things to accomplish before it gets to the city council is we're going to number the ordinance, find a spot for it to sit within the municipal code, and then create an application and come up with a a fee. Yeah. We really wanted to wait to see how the public hearing came about before we Since that's

a administrative thing and

a fee, we don't deal with that. Yeah. No. We It doesn't need to be We have to come up with a number and and then the city council through it directly. Right. Right.

Alright. Any other comments or questions? What's next? Nope. All those in favor of for the this temporary gravel pits ordinance to the to the city council with a favorable recommendation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Okay. Then we will move over to the cannabis draft ordinance for the cannabis pharmacy ordinance. And we don't have it's all it's all gonna be medicinal, right, at this point?

Mhmm.

Because that's all it's that's all all that's a lot.

Yes. We the staff will have to number this as well for the final version. So we'll be adding a number to it and putting it in. Most likely, this will end up in the land use chapter of code, chapter 12.

Okay. There was a question about distance between cannabis pharmacies, medicinal cannabis pharmacies. There's a proximity requirement described above. So I've made it okay according is there anything else in in Utah state code about distance between the pharmacy facilities?

As far as I can remember, the only way to limit it is spacing from the different residential zones or community points. I don't from each other. I don't think far as I can remember in talking to the attorney, that was an option. When we reviewed the code How much When I reviewed the when we were reviewing the state code and talking about it, I'm pretty sure that was not an option for us.

Yeah. Because it's not in there.

It's not in the state code? No. It's not, like, in this one. Right.

Out of all the other things we asked for, the attorney, nope. Nope. Nope. Yep.

I thought that was cute. Well, that that was my comment as I was on the phone with him. I was like, can we do this? And he said, no. You can't.

Nope.

So easy for them to say no. Let me see if

And, Amanda, just to clarify, they are not allowed in residential zones. Well, they won't be within six six hundred feet from any area zoned, primary residential. All measurements are taken from the nearest entrance of the pharmacy to the boundary of the community location or residential zone. So even if there's not a home on it, that zone, they can't even be within 600 feet of that zone, the border of that zone.

Yeah. And maybe to help the planning commission kind of picture what that means, we can pull up I don't I'm looking for the zoning map for Hyde Park.

It's gonna be down on the west. Right?

Yeah. So in reality, the only place you're gonna see it within Hyde Park City boundaries is down Industrial? In the commercial or industrial zones cleared down by Highway 91.

Because every West of the highway.

Yeah. I mean, there's an argument to be made that even our mixed use zone is primarily residential because Size wise, it is. Anchorage wise, probably it is. Right. Because the it's a mix of commercial and residential, but it's by building footprint. And so in reality, the number of residential unit square footage can vastly outnumber the commercial square footage. I'm I'm looking at the

state code, and there is no chapter 26. There's a title 26. Maybe there's another place where it should be. 441Alpha. Let me look there.

So 41 so 4Dash41 and 41 a are all the medical cannabis codes. K. But if there's a reference to some other

Yeah. There's a reference in first paragraph. Paragraph two.

26 b Oh,

4Dash That might be 4Dash26BDash201.

Although, it also might not No. There's no 26 b. Let's double check. The purpose of this section is to permit the establishment of medical medicinal cannabis pharmacy use as defined in Utah code 26 Utah code 26 b.

Yes.

There is a section 26 that talks about medical cannabis? K.

Yeah. You're in social health. Chapter. So this is probably the definitions.

Yeah. Because then down under c, it also references that chapter 26 b Oh, 26. Four

and four. There's 41 a. Part. Okay. Now let's look for

Yeah. So there you go. It's cannab cannabinoid research and medical cannabis.

I think you're making up words.

That I'm just reading it. 26BDash4Dash201. Definitions. Yep. So it's just pulling from the definition of medical cannabis pharmacy.

Can I ask a question?

Do we have to say something like definition per the state definitions per the state code? Because I've I've I guess I've heard other states, they call them dispensaries instead of pharmacies.

I think that's what this is trying to do with the purpose statement. Is that what the permit, the establishment of medical cannabis pharmacy use as defined in Utah code.

Because it's only through a pharmacy, not just like, in Colorado, they have dispensaries because anybody can get it. Maybe that's the difference, but pharmacies

Repairs of medicinal.

Yeah. So there's your definition. 33.

I don't see anything that talks about distance in the state code.

Right. Which probably means we can't regulate it.

Well, we can be

It should say title instead of chapter.

Can't we say I don't think it can be more restrictive. It would be more restrictive?

It depends.

It depends. That's the answer to every question.

That's what good parents say.

It's probably

Yes. I wasn't a good parent because I never said okay. I just said no.

No. I don't know.

This is all

While you're looking stuff up, can I ask Mayor Cox, what were the negative effects to the other cities? Like, have we taken care of all those items? Or maybe, you know, Marcus, what what are the negative effects that they wish they'd had in place? Or what are they what are they seeing? Selling it out of their basement, their front door?

Distance and and ensuring that you have clarification when you have a mixed use or apartments above a commercial area, and it's actually mixed use. For example, development has been approved that defines townhomes, and this other part is commercial. But above some of the commercial, they're gonna have apartments. So was it where are you measuring from the designated residential? The other one's designated as commercial, but it has apartments above. Yeah. So where are you actually measuring from? And that was their challenge. And Because apartments are considered commercial in some senses. On on the on the building code, absolutely. But if it it says in their primary Primarily residential. And young couples starting out or a single good, that could be their primary resident apartment. So Yes. I think and I looked to get the definitions, and I couldn't find this. So Okay. So, really, it is just the distance from residents. That's just their challenge is distance and and how residential is created could be in the commercial above base story or condo above base story. So condo is easier because that that is a space that is residential, a zone, but apartment's tough. Yeah.

I do have an answer to the distance between pharmacies. I mean, this this is in four Dash 41 a dash one one zero five. Anyone wants to know, a municipality or county may not. This paragraph two b require a certain distance between a medical cannabis pharmacy and another medical cannabis pharmacy. So we are not allowed to prescribe a distance between a mandatory distance between those two those two businesses.

Okay. I messed up. So section c no. This should be d. Anyway, that sentence says the proximity requirements described to us shall be measured as provided in Utah code 26Dash61A as amended. That needs to be deleted. So I added in the sentence as all measurements are taken from the nearest entrance of the pharmacy to the boundary of the community location. That's from the new code. The reference in line two is from the old code that now doesn't exist anymore, and I just forgot to delete that line. So

Yeah. You're right. There isn't a d. We go a, b, c, e. And so are you talking about the numbers in between c and e?

Yeah. So on page two K. It's one and then one a, one b, one c. I added in one c, and then item two, the proximity requirements, that sentence was supposed to be deleted, but I did not delete that. So that sentence just needs to go away. Oh, okay. Okay?

Alright. And because the blue states it. That writing in Blue. Right. Covers what the black would have.

Who's DW on the comment?

Don, you're right. That was comments that we were making at the last meeting when I was typing on the computer using her account.

K. Well, please don't start. Updates? My wife wants to k. Alright. Any other questions? Is there anything else we can add to it or take away from it that will make it better for Hyde Park City? And I guess we may not know what we don't know.

Well, one thing I was just thinking, it says the signage is limited to what is allowed, but do we have to make do they have to sign it so that we know what it is, what the building is?

403

Say that again. I don't think I quite understand your question. That if they have signage, you can only do what's allowed.

But I'm saying it should seems like it should have a sign that says this is a cannabis pharmacy. Should we have that? That's what I'm saying. Or you're just gonna put a red light?

I mean, there's businesses who get clever and in their process things like the bakery.

Right? Right. And if you know, you know. Right? Right. Because they wanna lend in to the neighbors.

Right.

Requiring them to identify themselves isn't something that we require of every other business in town, so it's not something that we would want to

pick on one particular business. Okay. So it does say here's that signage reference.

Eight code. 4Dash41AlphaDash403.

Paragraph four says, notwithstanding any municipal or county ordinance prohibiting signage, a cannabis production establishment may use signage on the outside of the cannabis production establishment. It doesn't talk about that's production. What about the pharmacy? There's a processing. There's a a processing facility. There's a production. Of course, here it talks about that includes only they use signage on the outside of their Kibbe's production establishment that includes only in accordance with four b of the section. I don't know where that is, but, anyway, I lost it. Name, logo, and hours of operation, and a Green Cross, and complies with local ordinances regor regulating signage.

They have to use the Green Cross? Is that what you're saying?

If they wanna use signage, I guess they can use a green cross. But also it talks about I guess they have to. Includes only establishments, name, logo, and hours of operation, and a green cross. But I'm confused because I don't know if this production establishment includes pharmacies.

Of a production establishment has to have the Green Cross? Is that what you're reading?

Yes.

Either way, I just think it's not nothing we can do anything about. This was probably another my bad.

Yeah. I just pulled from the wrong section. So 44Dash418Dash1104 is advertising for pharmacies, but it's pretty much the same rules. Okay. So I just referenced the wrong one. 1104. Let me make notes to change that. 1104 is the subject. Wrong. And says the same thing. In section two, it says the medical cannabis pharmacy may advertise an employment opportunity at the medical cannabis pharmacy. And, again, notwithstanding any municipal or county ordinance prohibiting signage, you signage on the outside of the medical cannabis pharmacy that includes only, in accordance with that subsection, the medical cannabis pharmacy name, logo, hours of operation, a Green Cross, and any other regulations that we have from the local ordinance.

I see how these are So, yeah, same wording. I just referenced

the production section when I should have referenced the pharmacy section. Ornam's I saw it. Good catch, Mike.

Actually, that's not what I was looking at, then I realized it in the middle of saying that. Okay.

Holly, can you hear us?

K. So if we wanted to regulate the signage more, we would have to change our signage ordinance and not include it in the cannabis

ordinance. It couldn't be specific to these pharmacies. It would have to be across the board to businesses in general. Right.

K. That may be some look at.

Can you hear me? Yeah. We can hear you now. Oh, I am so sorry. I have the wrong meeting code. I apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off if I cut someone off. Just do we have to totally change the ordinance to be able to change that signing code to make it so it's not a production only a production facility, but also a pharmacy?

Yeah. We we fixed that while you were trying to log on. So I apologize. I referenced the wrong state code. There was a different one for pharmacies, although the language was very similar, so we fixed that reference.

Wonderful.

And for us to regulate the signage, we would have to regulate it in the signage the city signage ordinance, not in the cannabis pharmacy ordinance.

To regulate it further.

You have to change it for all businesses. Right.

Okay. Alright. Does that answer all of the questions that we have about

I'm gonna check with Holly if she had The

the draft cannabis ordinance. Thanks for me.

Okay. That's all I have. Holly, do you have anything else?

Sorry. My thing keeps going in and out of privacy settings. No. I don't have anything else. It looks great.

Alright. Thanks, Holly.

I make a motion that we approve this or move this forward to city council with our recommendation for approval subject to the changes we've made during this Okay. Edits may we've made.

I second that.

Alright. We have a motion to approve the cannabis ordinance. Refer to recommend the city council. I'm sorry. Thank you. We have a, a motion to recommend approval of this ordinance to the city council with the changes that we've I made direct and into the session. Yeah. Yeah. Then we have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright.

Yes, sir. Too late.

I mean, that brought up a good thing, and it has nothing to do with what you passed, the signage. And maybe this is something that Mikael needs to research. If if you haven't noticed a business in North Logan. Oh, of the old Sonic? I've noticed that one. Yeah. We've all noticed that one. You've all noticed it? Yes. Okay. It's hard not to. I can't imagine that they'll stay in business more than a week when they open. I I I can't either, but I don't know where free speech ends and the insinuation of language in the sign. There's a place called

Folk. Folk King. Right. But it's not. Yeah. And

if whether or not a business has that free speech first amendment to name their business, but if it insinuates anything else, then I maybe that's something that Mikael can research. The other thing is is as you've been discussing this one, I thought about another code when we regulated SOBs, sexually oriented businesses,

and we Thank you for clarifying.

Yeah. Yeah. Not people of this.

In some cases, it covers both of them. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. But I'm thinking if I recall the regulation and the code, it may not be legal. To have assigned? To to what was done fifteen, twenty years ago, making it so that it can only be built on a road that doesn't exist in the industrial park. So that might be something plan commission might want to look at or Mikhail dig into because it Yeah. May not be leaked. The only thing I can think of is

if we tie it to something else that makes it illegal or makes the the product illegal, such as you can't have signs that could be enticed of drugs or other things that are illegal, federally, by federal law illegal because it's still

illegal by federal law. And and that sounds so subjective. So So on the SOVs, they're commercial entities. So might want to look into that one as I So thought the the insight that I was hearing from you is like The

the idea was to try to you know, they've got the green cross. Everyone knows what the green cross means. But if we can eliminate things like the the the leaf the picture of the leaf in the in the signage and

The state the state one didn't allow it unless they put it in their logo, I guess, and said Yeah. It could be part of the logo.

That's that's it could be part of the logo. So I don't know. Unless we make something that says you you can't have signs that include pictures of things that are illegal on the federal or state level. That covers that covers it. I don't know. Because it again, it's it it may be legal in in Utah, maybe legal in Colorado, and several other states, but I still know that if you try to take it on an airplane, that's a federal federal thing. You'll you'll get arrested. Not well, I've just seen or or try to go to to Russia with it. They'll put you in the gulag for six months. Ask Britney Griner.

Okay. Yeah. I I appreciate what you're saying. Yes.

Again, we're not trying to to eliminate the business. We just want this the signage to be more family Hyde Park family friendly.

Well, you know, they they have those vanity license plate requirements. You can't put certain things on there because they're offensive. Seems like that requirement should apply to signage too.

That's true.

There are many ordinances in place for regulating signage. We don't have to start from scratch. Those things already exist everywhere. But I just want to remind you that if you put many restrictions in place, you're setting yourself up to be challenged in court by somebody

Yeah.

Who could very well prove that you have limited their ability to do business, that they have lost money due to this ordinance, and it could it could not work out the way that you intend. Yeah.

So just for reference, there was there's, well, another reference within that co advertising code back to 4Dash41ADash109. And this is the section that talks about what you can and can't have in your logos. And they have this whole section down here that says that you can't have pictures or illustrations that refer to recreational uses of the drug, so, like, the leaf, which is a popular symbol for it. And then there's very specific terms you cannot have in your business plan or your logo. So I think Stay covered. It's pretty well covered.

My only real oh, I'm so sorry. Did I cut you off, Mike? Go ahead. Sorry. My my only real concern with the signage is to make sure it's not geared towards a younger audience. So, I mean, in other parts of the world, they'll have a a cannabis leaf that has, like, a funky face on it, or it'll have, like, a bow tie or stuff like that. I'm not so worried about necessarily the signage and making it, like, a broad spectrum thing. I mostly I don't want it geared towards a younger audience. So we don't have to have this crazy ordinance that, like, the new city planner explained that we're really narrowing it down. It just needs to be not younger generation.

Yeah. So section three BI says that the logo and the name or the logo of the license may not include any term statement, design representation, picture, or illustration that is associated with recreational disposition or that appeals to children. So state got that one covered too. Yep.

Then that's great. I mean, that's really the only issue. As long as the state has already covered it, then it's not gonna get passed on a city level either.

Yeah. Well, I think we're covered on the Canvas one. I think back to the bigger picture, I don't know what the rules are, but it seems like there's probably laws on what you can put in your business name and what you can put in your DBAs. And maybe that covers it. I don't know how that restaurant would pass through the those that name would pass.

There's several several in the state of Utah now. That's chain. That's not a one off. That's chain. So there's a there's others that are open and functioning? Oh, yeah. In Utah.

Alright.

Place of awesome.

Just

Good. Just yeah. You just need to have a kid proofread your your business plan to see That's the problem. I think a sixteen year old did Or maybe they they were the ones that wrote it. Gave him the idea.

That that one that we're speaking of in North Logan, like, that that's done on purpose. Like, they they want this talk factor. It says it on their website.

Yeah. Well, we'll see how it works for them. It won't. K. Alright. That, gets us out of the administrative items and into the discussion items. I really miss my clock. Where's my clock? Wasn't there a clock over there before? It's one over here. Over here. No. It's okay. No. I got one, but I used to be able to just look up. Anyway, the biannual moderate income housing report. Biannual. Okay. Is this the one that this isn't the one that goes to year. This is the one that we report to the state. But is the one that goes to workforce services? Is that biannual? Well, so

our the city's moderate income housing compliance, we tell the state that we, as staff, are gonna report to the city council and planning commission the progress on the objectives. And then after this report's done Thank you, Amanda. We report back to the state that we told you that we That we did the things that we were supposed to tell you. Okay. Got it.

So we we will report back to the state as Marcus and Yes. So we the staff reports to

the city council planning commission. And And after we report to you, then we report back to the state saying we've reported to our people, and everybody's reporting, and we're happy.

Yep. Because this doesn't look like the report. No. This is not. Intimate intimately familiar with that report. Okay. Who who would like to

is this Mikael? I am presenting to you. Alright. So it is in your packet. The updates that I made are few because there weren't a lot of updates to make. We added some numbers about reasons and that kind of thing, and we also added the line about revising the residential transition zone possibly. We talked about that at a previous meeting that we might wanna workshop that a little bit. So we made sure to give us a small reference to that in here, and then we will take this information and plug it into the questions that we have to craft and the text we have to write for that report, and that is due before August 1. So Marcus and I will sit down tomorrow morning and kinda button up the end of this and get that done ahead of time just in case.

K. I know that the people working that at the higher level are ready to work with you. Awesome.

They said they would review it if we could get it in our rooms. So And a a question that we have as staff people that we're gonna be posing to them is, one, there was talk at the state legislature about moving to a three year reporting window. I don't know if that got approved or not, so we're gonna check on that. And then the other thing was this the we had a joint workshop in January talking about how the city might wanna change our objectives and move to some different strategies. And so we're gonna have a conversation with the GWS as well to find out if there's a special procedure, or do we just modify the general plan, which I get as its own special procedure. You know, just kinda figure out how we do that to make sure that we're not, you know, throwing something out of whack for next year's reporting cycle.

I yeah. Or yeah. I think after COVID nineteen, we all just had a had a bit of, like, whiplash, you know, where things just went wild for a second and turned so fast. And, like and now it's kind of slowing down. And I mean and so I think at that time, they were like, yeah, we need to hear from you every six months, you know? And maybe now, yeah, three years is going to be more reasonable, and it's a more stable market. I just think that was a tough time to

Right. Have these things. Well and in reality, where I started working for the city the first year that I worked for the city is when they introduced this, and everyone was so excited about it at the state level. And then the first year ended, and that's when Hyde Park came and graduated into, you know, we have to comply. And it was just so funny listening to my counterparts across the state in the planning areas and the city management areas. And now that it's this is, like, year four that it's happening You're tired. And across the state, everyone's kinda saying, we're not seeing this really move the needle. Mhmm. Like, the governor's big projects that he's putting out there and the new zoning, that's the new thing that everyone's glomming onto, and they wanna adopt those. But the moderate income housing plans, yeah, everyone's kinda like, we're tracking it. We're doing the numbers. It's not really shifting anything. So do we have to keep doing this, or what do you what do you want? And so it has the traction for the moderate income housing plan, as a buzzword, has gone way, way down. I mean, the governor's office now has shifted to saying starter homes and first time homebuyers instead of moderate or low income housing. So even at the state level, the leadership has shifted to a new target already. So is

this really vital to Hyde Park City? I don't know. We're gonna find out. But And it's hard because we do need moderate income housing. We do need to get back to where, you know, their housing is only 30% of their income, and it's not that right now. Like, it's it's too much. I mean, it's so there yeah. Something does have to happen. But, yeah, the steps that they thought would that menu item that they thought would make those things happen, I think, like you say, hasn't.

Right. Well, it's funny because there's a lot of cities where the state wanted to kind of say, oh, look. Modern income housing is doing so much. And some of the cities, not up here, it was in other parts of state, pushed back and said, we already had 10,000 houses in the key approval queue before we adopted this plan. Modern income housing plan didn't change any of that. We already had, you know, tens of thousands of units across the state that were permitted and in the queue. And then suddenly they wanna say, oh, it's monitoring income housing. No. It's not. And so I thought I think a lot of it is also as the data has been collected, and the state's been chewing through that. They're realizing that, yeah, I don't think this is doing what we thought it would do. So from a city staff perspective, we're hoping that, you know, if nothing else, that this this goes back to being just something to encourage cities to do more and not have such harsh penalties when it doesn't seem to be accomplishing what they wanted it to. But that's not really for you to worry about right now. I just get off my soapbox.

Yeah. I've I've noticed myself that just dealing with people in the two counties here, Box Elder and Cache County that they're tired. They're tired of having to do this. And the the requirements were so stringent and and so rigid that it was very hard just to meet the reporting requirements, let alone Oh, yeah. The actual requirements. And Well, I messed it up twice.

Yeah. So I could tell you that report is tough to fill out. And what was sad was we like, we saw

a very small town with not a whole lot of income, have to hire a consultant to fill it out, and they they messed it up both times for the for the original and the the resubmission. So we had to do some creative work there to get them compliant. But and and just so you know, again, the people who are heading that up right now are much more flexible and really, approachable.

Reasonable?

Yes. Along with the the well,

the person that was hard to work with before is no longer there. Yeah. I guess it'll be nice to not have a finger wagged at me and voices raised at me on Zoom anymore. We could do that. Because that happened a lot. I won't name names for the public record, but that happened more than once. Yeah.

Okay. Alright. Well, this is looks like I mean, looks like we're doing our thing that we're supposed to be doing. Is there any there's nothing that we need to do, is there?

No. It it's not a vote. It's just we, as staff, are presenting to you that there has been progress. Like, again, most of our objectives revolve around rezoning to facilitate higher density. And so our progress report basically shows that the city did grant a rezone, so that equals progress, and that's what we're gonna report back to the state. Plus that's the only one that was requested. Plus that was the only one that was requested for that

particular zone. So we granted every rezone request.

Yeah. Well, I mean, we also granted the one for r five up on the but that is not one of our selected strategies that we're reporting on. So there were other rezones that got like, there's other rezones that have happened, but as far as the ones that are relevant to our modern income housing plan, yes, we've approved everyone that has come through. So, So, yeah, throw throw us a bone, state. We're doing our part.

Alright. Any other things that we need to discuss tonight? Is is there first of all, I'm sorry. Is there anything else about the moderate income housing biannual report that we need to talk about? Or I think we just have to tell them thank you, and that's all we need to do. Thank you for your efforts

and for your product that you have. Yeah. Crossing the t's and dotting the i's for Yeah. Yeah. Those who are less who require that till we get road funding.

And And a fiction typo. Will this be I bet.

Will this then be approved by the city council and published? This is already presented to the city council. We don't necessarily publish it, make it available to the general public. That wasn't part of our compliance. It's just presented and included as part of the public record for the meeting. Is it something that we may want to? We could. But, again, with because the reporting requirements were so onerous with this thing, when we adopted this, we just said we're doing the bare minimum. Right. Which is why we're gonna inquire about changing our strategy because there was an interest to maybe shift. And instead of complying with the bare minimum, actually trying to promote, you know, moderate income housing. Right. So, yeah, I I don't see any reason why we couldn't have this report be public facing. There's nothing in there that This report

out. I I know I know. I'm not I'm not talking about the one that actually gets submitted to to the state because that's a separate Right. A separate one. And you can see all those online anyway through the DWS's

website when they do their or did they take that down? Couple years ago, they made a big deal about publicly shaming everybody in their reports because they said, you can go here to see every city's compliant report. And that was the first year that Hyde Park did ours. And so ours was just like, hey. We're new here. This is what we think we're gonna do. But then other cities that were, like, reporting I think they did take marked that up and were like, they didn't do this one. They didn't do this one. It was very big public shaming campaign. It's like when you pull up the parcel viewer at the beginning of the year, and there's all those red zones that didn't pay their taxes. That's it was like that. It's big math. Yeah. It is.

Public shaming.

Is there anything else that needs to be brought up before the commission? Is there anything that people would like to if let's go this way. If there's anything you'd like to discuss in the next or in future meetings, please bring it to myself or to Marcus and Or Mikhail. Or to Mikhail. Thank you very much. Sorry. It's hard to get used to having that first option change on me.

Or we can't sit at the same table, and then you'd only have to look at that direction. Melissa's We're gonna work on that. Melissa's vanished. You need to get a bigger table.

K. So move them move them together. If we if you have anything we'd like to bring before the commission to talk about, please come to me. We won't discuss it now because it's not on the agenda.

Yeah. So one of the items that needs to get brought back up is the transition zone edit that we started working on, and we'll try to make sure that we've made the edits that we're talking about at the last meeting before putting it on the next agenda.

Right. K.

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Yes, sir. Yes. We do. Yes. We do. Yep. Alright. Anything else?

I've asked I make a motion. We adjourn. Second.

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

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Gotta have a What a cutie. Code when you're Oh, I realized my video was on.

Another doodle.

Alright.

I'm going back. Recording. Would love to participate.

Thanks.