Planning Commission 6.18.2025

Oh, do you not wanna keep it was gonna type. What's that? I was gonna say you can keep it for the night.

I'll take you an email. It's either your form, pop up here. So Oh, yes. All we can do with it. Yeah. Okay. Thanks,

Ali. There's just one missing right now.

What's that?

Her paper's still here. Here's yeah. There's the extra one.

K. They're ready.

We have everything going live.

Yep.

Live streaming, recording, and and all sorts of stuff. Yeah. K. Alright. Oh, no. Okay. Welcome everyone to Hyde Park City Planning Commission meeting. Today is 06/18/2025, and we welcome everyone who's who's come. Let's see. Alright. Let's start. If we can get commissioner Hansen to give us a prayer or a thought and lead us in the pledge of allegiance, we'll get started. Okay.

Our dear father in heaven, we're grateful unto thee for our many, many blessings. We're grateful for the freedoms we enjoy and the we're grateful for this community that which we live in, the beauty that surround us, and the great people that live here. We're thankful that, we could all live together and and and for the beautiful place which Hyde Park is. We're thankful we could meet in this meeting. We ask that thy spirit will be here with us to help us to talk about those things which are important to the city and help that we will make it a better place for all of us. Help us all to be civil and kind to everyone. Bless any in our community that may be suffering. Help us to, be an instrument in in thy hands to maybe help them. We ask for thy spirit to humbly be with us in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. We stand.

Alright. 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. Thank you very much. We'll go we'll start by looking at the minutes from last the last meeting, which would be the June 4. Apparently, I need permission to view. I didn't before. Any comments?

I didn't see any.

Any comments that you thought of?

It wasn't here, so

I don't even see it here anywhere to go. There it is. I didn't see anything either. Do we have a motion?

I make a motion. We approve the minutes as written. Okay.

I'll second that. We have an a motion and a second to approve the minutes from the June 4 as written. Any other further or any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes as currently written from June 4, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Great. We understand the commissioner Baird is on her way. So we'll we still have a quorum, so we'll continue until she arrives and then add her into the into the mix. You should welcome the cow.

What's that? You should welcome Macau and the new planning the new planner new city planner. Well,

would you like to I didn't don't know her. So would you like to introduce her to us? Sure. Our new city employee? In fact, I'll probably let her introduce her herself.

Hyde Park City has hired our first ever official city planner. She's sitting right over there. Mikkel, would you like to take her microphone and introduce yourself?

Hi, everyone. My name is Mikkel Layton. I come to you after spending two years with Grand County as a planner in Moab. I'm happy to be here to enjoy your beautiful climate, And I'm have learned a lot just in the last two days. I'm very excited to get started here and help plan the future of Hyde Park City.

Alright. Welcome.

Yeah. It's welcome. About to

get thrown into the frying pan or the fire or both. Okay. My thing got hacked. Alright. We have some administrative item or an administrative item we need to take care of. This does not require a public hearing. Is that correct? Correct. K. This is a site plan approval for Hazard Entities LLC. It is on the corner of 300 340 West?

So Center Street or Hyde Park Lane and 900 West if we're using the Hyde Park addressing. If you use

Hyde Park address, that's okay. Yep.

Which is down just about a block away from where our city public works operations are. Would you like me to give a project description? Yes, please. Alright. So the Paragon Subdivision was approved back in about 2012. This is a lot within that subdivision, so that's already been subdivided. What's being proposed tonight is a plan that the city had approved previously a couple of years ago. But as our code state, if a plan doesn't have any movements for a certain amount of time, they have to resubmit. So this is a resubmission of a plan that had been previously approved. This set of drawings that's in the box is the most updated version. It's a little hard to read, so I've requested that the applicant get us a different set that's more of a grayscale color format, but the other version is also inbox as well as the review done by Sunrise Engineering. There are a couple of elements that need to be looked at by the planning commission before granting approval, and I'll go through the comments from Sunrise Engineering that kinda summarize the city concerns. So first and foremost, our new master transportation plan that the city has adopted, we adopted last year. Tim Danos Limits the amount of accesses that can happen on major important roads Center Street is one of those roads. And so the spaces spacing between the accesses, it should be three thirty feet apart. Now you'll notice from the parcel viewer that the neighbor has an access, and so the proposed access from the site plan, which is approximately located here, does not meet that 330 feet spacing requirement. Also, by the city code, you can read the section right here. I'll just read it out loud for clarification on corner lots. No more than one access approach or drive shall be allowed on each frontage and access shall be a property lines or shall be located a minimum 300 feet from the intersecting property line, which is closest to the corner on collector roads or 150 feet on minor or secondary roads. So what that means in a nutshell is the two accesses that they have, the access on the north of the property, which I'll pull that back up now. I'll use the older plan because it's a little harder to see or a little easier to see. The access on the north does not meet the 300 foot spacing requirement. The access on the south end of the parcel barely doesn't meet the 100 foot 150 foot spacing requirement, but the DRC was fine with that being where it is. So one of the major questions that the DRC and Sunrise Engineering is posing to the planning commission is part of your consideration is if the city allows this access on the North Side to go through, we have allowed it in the past. It doesn't meet with our master transportation plan. But without that access, the project would have to install a fire turnaround, which could significantly alter the footprint of their building. So there's that's an item for the planning commission to consider is we're going to the master transportation plan is important, but it's not necessarily as binding as the ordinance. So the city staff, you know, we don't want to make the decision for you, obviously. But if there had to be a decision made, we would always go in favor of the city ordinance over the other plans that we have and, of course, considering health and safety primarily.

What is the distance from the the access to the west into the proposed access approximate.

So we when we measure the access, it's from center line to center line. And so if we're going approximately

I think it's further can be further than the Yeah. But it's not gonna be at 300 there. So So about 200. Even if you go to the end of the parcel, we're 250

feet. So it's not gonna make it. The other two issues, one has been addressed on the new site plan. It's a little difficult to see. But there was a concern with the placement of the utility lines in the original plan, and they intersected with stormwater pond and the public utility easement in a way that's against the stormwater standards that we have that, as far as I could tell, has been addressed on the new plan. Not from what we have, but what Cache Valley stormwater Right. So our stormwater standards are the Cache Valley stormwater coalition standards. We we have adopted those as our own city standards. And then the final item of concern in the engineering red lines whoops. I did not wanna do that. As you can see, even this final bullet point is the percolation test in accordance with those stormwater standards should be performed at proposed stormwater pond locations. Right now, the value that's being shown on the plans is zero, which is the historic value based on the online historic survey number. So the rules that in the Cache Valley stormwater standard say if it's a zero, we want you to do a percolation test anyway. If you don't wanna do a percolation test, we still require a report to be written as outlined in those standards to kinda justify your stormwater plan. City has not received that yet, and I don't see anything about a percolation test on the new plants. So that requirement appears that it still has not been met. K.

Alright. Ladies and gentlemen,

what are your thoughts? The We have a developer here? The applicant is here if you have specific questions for them.

Why don't you come on up to the one of whoever want you wanna have represent hazard entities? Hazard.

Sir, Nick Harrison, owner.

K. And your name, sir? Troy Hazard. Alright. Nice meeting you, Troy. You too.

So yeah. So two weeks ago ago, I came. That's where you're you've been talking about. But I guess I was just unprepared that meeting, but I just wanted to give some more context and more explanation of kinda what to do. So about three years ago, we went our contract for the land. During due diligence, we came to planning commission with our site plan as shown. Uh-huh. They they did approve that as an exception to the code at that time because that's what we needed for my business to operate, basically. So we went through, bought the land. Probably four or five months later, we had the plans done by car right here, architect plans. Actually done. We came back, had another go ahead, from them. We ended up having to postpone the building just because that was when prices were skyrocketing. Interest rates were shooting up. So, anyway, we've been saving up the past few years to do this project. And I guess I just wasn't prepared last meeting because I was expecting it to go through. But, anyway, I understand the code has changed. I did wanna point out that it was an exception last time as well. Just because this lot is pretty small, it doesn't even meet the 300. It's not possible for it or to meet that 300 foot requirement. The new plans actually brought that parking lot in. It looks like about 12 feet or so. In which direction? So the so the parking spots are gonna go

to the west. 12 feet further to the west? Yeah. Okay. For the pond there,

which is my business involves trailers, loading, unloading, car haulers mostly, so they're big trailers. And it's I went out there this past week and kinda measured out with this plan. And even with that, it's it's not really doable with the trailer at all if I don't have that second access. So it's kinda put me in a bind. Without that, I'm gonna have to do, you know, like forklift out in the street, loading and loadings down the street with flashers on. I think it's probably just gonna cause more congestion. But, yeah, that's kind of the points I wanted to make there, and I just feel like I didn't do a good job last meeting. Okay. So I apologize for that. But

Any word on when the percolation test might be completed?

Yeah. So I have a soils test. Is that what is that the same thing?

Possibly.

They did I we went out there. They went out there, dug a couple holes,

got the soils, and That's gonna be your geotech report.

Is that different? The percolation

so the perk test may have been included in that, but, also, if it's not specifically it's a different type of test. So they could do it at relatively the same time,

but it is a bit different from the geotech report. I did have that done a few years ago when I was a renvention issue.

Yeah. If that perk test is done, I is the older one, the three years ago, still valid? Can we still use that one? So for the geotech report, I think that is

still fine because there's been no significant movement of the soils or anything. But the PERT test, like I said, the issue is that it's a zero, which is the historic soil survey. Is that what it's the name is of the where they pulled the data from? Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the Cache Valley stormwater standards require, if it's a zero, to either do a new perk test or submit a report with the rules on page eight of the standards, which I don't know what those are off the top of my head. So we need either a percolation test for all the areas where they're gonna have a stormwater pond or the detailed report that qualifies for the standards in the Cache Valley Coalition manual.

K. I guess what we have to find out is if any of those tests that you've done before contain it. If they don't, then

that is a requirement. We don't So as far as Sunrise Engineering was concerned, they didn't see anything that looked like a percolation test, and they did look at the old Geotech report as well. K.

So is that just gonna that would affect the pond size?

It could. It could. And the plans you show that the your your ponds are big enough to hold the eightieth percentile of the stormwater. But if your percolation is a zero oh, I'm trying to remember the issues. I'm not an engineer, so I'm just giving this my best approximation based on my conversation with our city engineer. If it's zero and there's no percolation, I believe you have to upsize the pond significantly more to hold a lot more stormwater than our standard eightieth percentile. Right. Which we really don't wanna do because

we need space for trailer

Yes. Work. It's a Sounds like the perm test will give you a smaller pond if you can get that. I mean, that'll justify you having a smaller pond. Or force you to have a larger pond. Right. So the so the ponds I have right now are sized for our standard eightieth percentile stormwater and even a little bit more than that.

But what the perk test is gonna show is if they need to make them even bigger or if they're fine the way that they are.

K.

K. Alright. So not smaller, but possibly bigger. Right. And the home, it's not the case. And the reason why this is so important, especially for this part of town, is we know there's groundwater issues. You can go down there and look at all the other ponds and all the other lots around this one, and they're full of stagnant water and weeds and mosquitoes. And so now that we have updated stormwater standards since they came last time, we wanna make sure they follow the new rules because we don't need another mosquito pond down there.

So k. David, do you have any questions you wanna ask?

No. The only thing I was focusing on is the access point. I don't have a lot of thoughts on that other than I see it's restricted. There's not a lot of choice there. So it seems like as long as they're as long as the pawn doesn't have to be made any bigger, that seems like something that should be accepted and allowed to me.

So just just to make sure, the pond It's in the corner. Is it just located here in the front? It wraps all the way around It does wrap all the way around? Other side too. Yeah. So is there, like, a culvert underneath the Yeah. Okay. Plant underneath there. Okay.

Let me consider. Okay.

Seems like a lot of stormwater for a small lot. Yeah. I know.

It's what is that? Close to 15%

of a lot. A lot. Yeah. Okay.

Paulie, do you have any questions? No? Okay.

I I think I think I agree. I think that because we subdivided it this way, we can kinda put them in a box that you really do kinda need that access. And it is it is a long way down on West Center, so there's not much traffic ever going to be down there. I mean, dead the road dead end's another block west of there.

Yeah. I was just gonna look at that word. Can you show us the Yeah. The map the plat map?

Maybe two blocks. Not very far from there. It's in So the lot is located here. A rail track Commissioner Hansen's right. The airport's right here. And unless that gets moved, we're probably not gonna be having much through traffic through there. Yeah. Can you zoom in to where the

I'll speak into my microphone. Will you zoom into where the actual

Right there. Where this plot is? That little corner. Right? Right now. Yep.

That's the way.

It's right there. Because he want we're ask he's asking for access of 900 And Center. Yes. Yeah. So the the city has already set a little bit of a precedent here. I mean, you can see the adjacent or the other corner lot. They've allowed the same thing to happen. The plan was previously approved knowing it wasn't in contradiction to the ordinance. Yeah. I think that's an issue. My role as the city staff is to just inform you that that's a rule that we have, you know, if you wanna continue that precedent and Yeah. Allow the access and potential violation of the master transportation plan, that's up to the land use authority. And in this case, that might be okay because otherwise, we're gonna have a problem with the fire access. And so it'd be a bigger concern for us as staff that we have the appropriate fire access through there than that we strictly follow the master transportation plan spacing requirements on a development that was approved before those rules were adopted.

Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. I I think I'm okay with

the extra access to the north and just saying you gotta finish up the other engineering with the ponds to make sure that you've done your protest in the ponds to make sure that it passes the engineering, but

allow the the access to the north. I think I'm okay with something, like, along those lines. Melinda, what are your thoughts?

Yeah. For the business, I love that, like, I to give you that second access, I don't struggle so much with the 300 feet as I do the close distance to the intersection. I don't like those. But, like, Ned has a good point. It you know, the road doesn't go that far. I wondered about granting, like, a temporary access, but, you know, that we say, like, you have to renew every five years, or if it gets too crowded, then we cut it off. But, like, that's not for the business that is in business doing great, and then all of a sudden we're like, hey. Now you can't have this access anymore. Yeah. I struggle because I hate going against the ordinance every time not every time, but so many times that we do, it comes back to bite us. And it just, like, we're like, we shouldn't have done that. We had a rule. We should have stuck by it. But I like to promote business. You know? And I get that trailers pull through in and out better with two accesses. So, yeah, I I don't know that I would vote against it. My only other concern or issue would be, like, the landscaping plan is that I didn't see that in the stuff that I read.

I think they were gonna put on the new plans just just to to show

It's all gone, probably. Right? It's not. It's not.

I think that's something that this body No. It's not grass. It's still landscaping.

It's

like rock scape, basically. It's Sort of like a you know, they don't call it xeriscape, do they? Well Xeriscape. Scot up today.

There's xeriscape is just like rock, or xeriscape is like local plants that don't use very much. So is it just rock, or do you have some plants in there?

I don't believe we're required to put any, so I was just gonna do rock. Yeah. But so there's no maintenance. But if Well, in that industrial landscaping,

12/01/6080, it says minimum 5% of the gross area of the lot or parcel that contributes to the relief of heat, noise, and glare. And so that wouldn't be rock. That would be something like leafy, you're alive. Okay.

I'll give an example. The Steve Regan project that's going in on the corner for their 5%, they just elected to plant a bunch of trees. So they don't have any lawn that they need to mow or plants they need to go trim. They're just planting trees. Yeah. But we also limit trees in this industrial zone. We don't want them anywhere on the park strip.

Mhmm. I mean, that's Oh, that's true. Sebringin do. Sebringin is in the commercial zone. So you Yeah. No trees in the landscape The the right of you know, in that right of way or park strip or anything. We say no trees there, which, yeah, it'd be great to have trees, but our ordinance says no to trees. The and she was

that I see with that is that pretty much all of the area around the lot is used for the It's all the water retention. The water retention. And I don't think you're allowed to put landscape in there other than the rock. But you can And stream it. So it doesn't even necessarily have to be planted in the ground. Sometimes you can say we've got these potted things that we come out and water. Do you know what I mean? Like, it doesn't

it could be where you have concrete or pavement because you have planter boxes or

There is that little spot there. I can see it. I

hear stuff. Yeah. I'm Courtney Wallace. I'm with Cartwright Architects. Not all the green on there is pond. So all the green represents areas that we can provide some landscaping or ponds are mixed into that. So down around on the south side of the building, down where the dumpsters are gonna be, we've got plenty of area that we could do natural landscape. You know, we could fountain grass, that kind of stuff to meet your 5%. Plus, we've got room out on the street area between sidewalk and out to curb and gutter that we could do some low lying plants. There's plenty of room on-site for us to hit 5% landscaping. I'm not even worried about that. Right. But this body is supposed to approve a landscape plan. Yes. We don't have one done yet.

K. There so there is not one yet? No. There is not. It shouldn't impact the access point there, should it? No. Okay. No. Just another consideration. Right. Separate issues. Well, I think I think the steps here is they gotta know what their access is, then they gotta do their perk test so they know how much the retention pawn is gonna be, then they can lay the retention pawn, then they can do their landscape. So it's kinda like we're in the

first of four steps here to get Yeah. And we and, you know, we met last Wednesday with the city. Right. There was not enough time to get a perk test done between Wednesday and Sunday. Right. Just Understand that. Understand that. Right. So, yeah, we still need to get that. I understand that there's still a few things we need to get done. But Right. That's not a problem. We'll get those things done.

Okay. That makes sense.

I'm just thinking of I think from what I can tell, we're pretty much on agreement on the major the one major issue that we can control, and that is the North access. The the second access to the north. I believe we're Mhmm. Okay. I'm making an assumption there because I have I have not taken a vote. The perk test, we don't have we don't have an option. We don't we can't change that. That's required. So we could do a conditional approval, but the landscape plan, is that something that's required of us to approve also?

It is. And I I will note our since we have our new city planner, we've been talking about plan reviews and responsibilities. I was reminded that in the Utah state codes, conditional approvals actually can prove to be very problematic, and so we probably should not be doing them if we can help it.

That's all we do here.

I know, and I hate them.

I know they're tough, but I yeah. Hate I get why we do them because we don't like to put people off and say, hey. Two more weeks or another month or whatever it is. But, yeah, I don't like the conditional approvals either. I think we get into trouble that way and things slip through the cracks and we forget about checking on stuff or we assume the next body's going to or staff is going to, and then nobody checks on it. And not your fault. Like, almost every project that comes before us. Like, we have a lot of conditional approvals that we probably shouldn't do where we try to save people time. But I don't know if it saves any time, and it it definitely causes havoc on this end.

Yeah. Just a note. Usually, when there's conditional approval, we end up following up with a plan for at least a month after the meeting just to make sure the conditions have been met. Yeah. So I think, like, putting them off two weeks gives them a better deadline. Like Well Yeah. We're we're chasing squirrels a little bit, but I just wanted to add that.

Let let me ask this question. How long would it take to get a perk test done and to get a landscape plan done?

The landscape plan's easy. We can have that back. No problem. The perk test, that could take a little bit of time. K. That's not what I do. So Right. I I hate to answer that for the people who do it. I just know trying to get Geotech reports done right now is a few weeks out. I don't think we'd have a perk test in two weeks.

So is two weeks

too soon, or is the month four weeks a better or four to five weeks? Well and I wanna be clear. The perk test, it's there's two options in here that the engineers have identified. One is do a perk test, and two is to prepare that report according to the Cache Wall Cache Valley stormwater standards. I don't know how intensive that report needs to be. I haven't read all of page eight of the stormwater standards. But my guess is if we're waiting a month to do a perk test, it might be sooner to

prepare the report. Yeah. Yeah. I might for the storm. I know my civil engineer, those things are way bigger than they need to be. So I think he's already taken that into consideration.

So Okay. I would just have to talk to him about it. Alright. I just wanna make sure the commission knows there's two options there. It doesn't have to be work test. There is the second option.

So could that be done in two weeks, the report and the last We'd like to get you

done as quickly as you'd like to get done. So Right. Yeah. What is the best schedule for you?

To approve it tonight, honestly, is the best schedule for us.

Like I said, the landscape plan, I'm not worried about. Right. So I I don't know, but it matters if they commit to two weeks or four weeks. I mean, we just they they can let the staff know if they're ready to be be on the agenda Right. A few days before

two weeks. We can have them on the next one, then Colette can give you a call or send you an email a couple days before finalizing the agenda. Next one because we're gonna be running on to the July 4. So Yeah. Are we meeting on July 2? July 2.

It's the Wednesday before, or it's the

sixteenth of Who? July. Raise your hand if you will be out of town on the second and unavailable. So we'll just if three of you will be here, that's enough to have a quorum and a meeting unless you have other plans.

No getting sick, Ned.

I don't have other problems. And you can proxy. I gotta have surgery on the twenty sixth. Hey. I'll be here if that helps, but I don't get to vote. So Surgery.

Okay.

So So tentatively, we'll plan on having a meeting on the second Yes. Unless somebody gets sick. Then

Then I'd be said he was sick.

No. Sick right now. Since

there are some outstanding items, and I don't believe that we can do a conditional I don't think that's an appropriate thing to do at this point. I'd like to table this until such time as you're prepared to come back with those required items, just the two items. I think

Is there anything we can give them to say that it's okay to go with the north thing, or do we wait? I mean

I think it's I think it's

it all happens at once. I'll just I'll let you know that I'm in favor of it. Mhmm. I am too. I have no problem with it. And so that'll help that'll help take one checkbox. Three. That is definitely helpful. That was the next checkbox. Right. So Yeah. Two to nine. So let's you know, you don't need to worry about that, but the other two things, one thing. As soon as those are done, let us know, and we'll put you on the agenda for the next meeting.

So to be clear, the perk test is not actually

if It's either the perk test or the Engineering

the engineering report. The report. Mhmm. The And I believe I emailed these red lines to you, Courtney. Is that right? K. So you should No. It was not.

Troy, do you have any idea if you plan to, like, go in or out both entrance? Like, will they both be entrances and exits, or will you always go in the one and out the other? I don't know if it matters. I think if we grant the access, we can't say only But it matters. Only exiting on that north side. Like, put a gate there? No. Just like it's only an exit. You know what I mean? It's not an entrance from the north. It's exit only, so they're not just barely getting like, with their trailer, they're still their trailer's still hanging out in the intersection waiting to turn into that driveway. Like, if it were only an exit, it feels better to me. But I guess it depends on how that road developed in the future. Yeah. There's probably a lot of things that affect it. You can ignore me. Everybody else does.

Alright. So, chair, was that a motion?

I will make a motion to table this until a future date when you present those other two items. You you just need to give us a date. So for now, table this, the hazardous entry entities. What are we doing? Site plan. This is a Site plan. Plan?

Site plan review.

Site plan. K. So that's my motion to table it.

I'll second that.

Alright. Any discussion further discussion? K. All those in favor of tabling this final site plan for hazard entities until a time where they provide the other two missing items, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Troy, good luck on getting whichever things you need, and we're ready for you as soon as you get back. Thank you. So we will put you on the agenda, and Colette will check-in with you a few days before

to to see if you're ready to go. K?

Alright.

Let's talk.

Oh, the amount of hell I have gotten for this. What's that? The cannabis plan. The amount of I should have kept track of the citizens reaching out and residents being like, you are a freaking prude. I'm, like, in shock. But but

Let's introduce it, and then we'll talk. Oh, sorry.

So let's go to our discussion items. We can go in any order we choose. Would you like to talk about the medical cannabis first? No. I would

I don't As far as speediness goes, I would assume cannabis and gravel pits will take less time than the transition zone.

So See what's with that information, what you will. So let's let's do the medical cannabis and the gravel pit first.

K.

And these are discussing discussion items, so they still they still require a public hearing. Is that correct? Nope. Only if it's

advertised as a public hearing. So just being a discussion item No.

To for us, their discussion, I we're not voting on them today.

Right. But to vote on them, we we have We would need public hearing. Sort of public hearing before end. Is that correct? The goal, as as I understood from your email that we exchanged earlier in the week, was to get these ordinances tonight to a point where we could have a public hearing at the next meeting. That's that's what I was thinking. That's the goal. K. So was this gonna go to the city council if we do some edits? They Not yet. Mm-mm. Public meeting at this level first. Okay. So all the city ordinances eventually get approved by the city council, but they don't go to their agendas until you hold the public hearing at this meeting. Marcus, can you make the text bigger? Yeah. In fact, I can I'm gonna open this up on the online platform in case there's edits, then I can make them while we talk.

K. Random citizen Do that, ma'am. Amanda comes back to a different chair. Random citizen number two. Yeah. Bring your chair up. Well, we already have random citizen number one. Amanda, do you want my iPad? No. She's fine. Planning commission, would it help if I summarized

what is being proposed in this ordinance Yes. You bet. And why it is being proposed? So a neighboring a neighboring city, which shall not be named for the public record, recently fell victim to a medical cannabis facility that was put in a location that was not appropriate or aligned with the state code or the city ordinances because their city ordinance wasn't very thorough, and the people who reviewed it at the state level misread some things. And so the cannabis dispensary got put way too close to a school. So in response, everyone in the Valley is really concerned about medical cannabis, so we have this draft ordinance for you to look at tonight. This is a draft that was originally discussed here and then passed to the city attorney. His recommendations stick very closely to the state requirements. He didn't deviate too far from those. And so we can kinda just go through this section by section. So the first section of this document is just the ordinance resolution language. That's not gonna be part of the ordinance. So it starts really where it begins at section one, medical cannabis pharmacy. So the purpose is to permit the establishment of medical cannabis pharmacy use as to find Utah code 26BDash4Dash201 subject to licensing procedures required by the state of Utah. So let me be very clear for the planning commission. The state of Utah treats cannabis facilities much like the group homes issue that we recently discussed. The city cannot outright say no. All we can do is direct them to locations where we would be okay with them happening. So all the licenses for these facilities are approved by the state. That's section b, just identifying that the health Utah health department has to approve the license, and the city has to approve any business licenses. And then c identifies where these could go. And these are pulled pretty much word for word from the state code. So if we start at section one, it's as required by Utah code chapter four dash 41 a. A medical cannabis pharmacy shall be located at least 200 feet from a community location, which includes any public or private school, licensed childcare facility, or preschool, church, public library, public playground, or public park. So it has to be at least 200 feet away from all of those facilities or 600 feet away from any area zoned primarily residential. Any questions?

See, I didn't think about the or. I was thinking it had to be both. Shouldn't that be an or? I think it should be an or.

It's an or. It's like if any of the first options are not present, we go to option b. So looking at a neighborhood, if they're lacking all of those things, you shift to

section b. So, like, that in my neighborhood, for example, we don't have any of those things, but we would be 600. So we would be primary present primarily

resend Residential zone. Right. So where if you live in the agricultural zone and the r two zone, that's a residential zone. There's no other uses permitted. So they would have to be at least 600 feet

away from your neighborhoods. So this would really I I was thinking, like, if it was in a mixed zone

Like a mixed use.

Mixed use zone and you had a

We have schools playground in there. We have schools everywhere in the mixed use zone. But not But but 300 feet.

Okay. But so then then this says you're either 200 feet from the school or 600 feet from resident. Well, if I'm the the pharmacy guy, then I'll say, I pick the 200 feet from the school. Yeah. 200 feet. 600 feet from the house that's really closer. Well, I reality, like, why are you gonna put a medical cannabis in a residential neighborhood anyway? Well, I'm just thinking of the mixed zone where they can't put them in the bay though. Like Well, yeah. But if it's mixed zone, that doesn't it's not a primary residential. Well, we're putting those little businesses, you know, in the bot in the one end of those mixed zones. I don't want anybody putting them there. But how far is the new middle school from those

200 feet isn't even that far. 200 feet. Like, it's not even our So if you don't even have an acre. It's, like, nothing. 100 to the wall?

Yeah. Yeah. It's 200 feet is nothing. So if you're looking at the medicals medical school. Wow. Middle school I mean, medical cannabis and middle school just mixed together. So if we go from the center yeah. I mean, you're already 200 feet before you even leave the

property even

leave the ramp. Do that. 200 feet is nothing. Let's go 200 feet from the property line. You're still within the neighboring development. Easily. So in theory The 200 feet doesn't you could have medical cannabis placed in one of these mixed units that's in the Muir development, except it's not listed as one of the approved uses in the development agreement. So never mind. You can't have one there.

You can't have it there. Why?

Because it's not one of the approved uses that we've agreed to in our development agreement. For that one? For that particular development. That one. Not the ARIA. But if they were developing in, like, a standard mixed use zoning and we didn't have a development agreement, you could have one. Or, like, in the ARIA, You could potentially have one there. And that's right across the school the street. Do we have to have a city be 200 feet? That state regulation is 200 feet? That's a question that we can pose back to the city attorneys. Can it be more? It's got 200 feet is nothing. You might as well not even have it there. Right. So, I mean, that's why we're talking about it tonight because I I got this draft back, like, today. So I wanted to get all the comments from the planning commission on this draft, send it back to the attorney so that we have all those things addressed and updated or a note from him saying you can't do that?

Let's get a note from him on our max feet that is allowed legally. Store.

I still think it should be an and. Ask him about I think it should be an and as well.

But 600 Feet isn't that far either. Well, at least that's two football fields. Yeah. That's true. How dangerous are these? What are we Not even a football field. 600 feet. The 600 Feet one is two football fields. Yeah. It's a so it's a it's a medical it's a cannabis pharmacy. It's where they're gonna sell wheat.

So, like, across the street from Walmart is that one? Yeah. Where where they have, like, that CBD oil or something? No. No. No. That's different.

CBD is different. This is straight. They're selling marijuana.

They're selling

Or they're selling With a cannabis products. I mean, everything has to have a prescription. Use my air quotes. But, like, they are selling weed. Oh, yeah. And you can walk in, and you can get a prescription card. I don't have a problem with the actual business. It's fine. I think cannabis is a great thing for people that need it. I just don't want it super close to an l to a middle school or a high school.

K. So the three comments we have so far are, can the spacing be more for both of those, and

can this be an and, or does it have to be an or between the two? Because if it's on the other side of Wolfpack, if it's that commercial that's facing the highway, that's even farther away from the schools. That doesn't make me uncomfortable. That would be fine. I just don't want it that we can go on our lunch break and, yeah, and buy bake.

I mean, our mixed use zones are actually primarily residential.

Mhmm. Right. That's another point that I was actually discussing with Mikhail earlier is with our percentages being what they are, we probably could win if it ever went to court that those are primarily residential because we require the we have 40% commercial, but 60% is residential. So, primarily Right. More than half of the zone is set aside for residential regions.

So those areas require 600 foot distance? So you would

with that being considered What are you doing? Probably the entire section of town that is East Of Highway 91, most of it would be excluded from the medical cannabis facility. Unless it gets to a sticky situation too depending on how much they wanna push that. Right. So you would probably end up in court if somebody really wanted to push it. But, yeah, all of our What about the East Side Of Main Street? Yeah. I guess the there's a lot of parcels down there that are still zoned commercial, so they could set up if there was a building in the commercial zone.

And we've had set it on there. Professional would be fine.

I mean, can we limit it to just commercial or industrial zone?

That's a great question for the attorney. I think we've done that pretty much because we say zone primarily residential.

Takes out the mixed use. Well, it takes out the

vagueness.

I thought with our sexually oriented businesses, we said they had to be West Of 200 West or only the industrial zone. Put it out where the roads don't exist yet. Yeah. Yeah. Like, yeah, you can have many more in town that's industrial zone, which is only way over there.

K. Well, we can't have commercial. Do we have commercial industrial?

Yeah. Mhmm. We also can't discriminate either. Like, it's gotta be pretty

Let's ask some citizens what they think. Well, now hold on.

For opening this item to public comment, we have to open every item on the agenda for public comment. We are gonna have a public hearing on it next week, hopefully.

Maybe maybe the random assistant could just email, and maybe that email could be read.

Right. Just taking the Generally, if we're not accepting public comment for an item, like, if it's not advertised as a public hearing, we will accept any comments in writing either to the planning commissioners or to the city staff. K. Do you need me to text? That's the idea is we get these I got it. Ready for a public hearing at the next week. I probably said next week, but you know what I mean.

So I believe the Utah state legislation, it's within a thousand feet is what's on Utah state.

So let's double K. So we can always go up to what the state law So this allows. We can't go less strict. Restrictive.

We can't be less. Correct.

Those are the words I was looking for.

So on their code, a person may not locate a cannabis production establishment within 1,000 feet of a community location.

That's a production establishment. That's like a farm.

Right. No. I know. Okay. Sorry. I'm just for reference, or within 600 feet of a district that the relevant municipality or county has been zoned primarily residential.

K. So that's for a production facility, it's the same, the 600 feet from a residential zone. Yeah. K. Do you wanna just drop

a?

I'll I don't know if it's Is that what you're saying? Or

Well, let me Well, I don't think a even What if you What if you What's the point of even having it there?

What if they were both fixed today?

Yeah. Why can't

well I mean, all of those things right now are in residential. So

Or yeah. I mean, for me, it's just saying commercial or residential. Yeah. Why can't we just let's just check with the attorney and see if we can just pop it in a commercial or industrial. I think that's the easiest fix here. Yeah. I think so. Instead of trying to mess with all of this and or feet, it just has to stay in that. Flip it and make the 600

feet the first requirement.

Yeah. But then that gets tough because like, have them both be 600 feet or have it be 600 for the top one and two hundred for the bottom one?

Yeah. Ned's shaking his head because he knows exactly what that means. I guess what I'm wondering is if changing b to a and a to b makes a difference.

Oh, like, you have to meet the first one. And? And if not If they're and, they don't have. If it's an and If it's an

or, it doesn't matter. Your name is the same as b or a.

No. I do. Or we should just find out if it can if it can be removed first. Just and? Just and would solve that. And then if we can put it in just a commercial or a planned professional, which would be commercial as well, isn't it? Or it's planned for sure. Planned professional zone. It doesn't exist anymore. Did we take it out? It's gone. Oh, okay. We thought we did. Nobody used it. Nobody used it. So if it's just commercial

Yeah. I mean, I would prefer we stick it in the industrial zone, just like Melinda said, the same reason that we did sexually oriented businesses because that's way, way out there, if we're really worried about it. But if you want, if we can restrict it

okay.

Either way. K.

It still could generate sales tax. So I just don't want it around schools, and I don't want it to cause with cars coming up and down at weird hours, I don't want it to cause a disturbance to residences. That's really all I'm thinking about. Like, the fact that it's cannabis, I don't really care. I mean, what happened to all of the things that

were in the original

suggestion, like hours of operation? I was just gonna say the seven to seven or I sent those to him and asked if we could include it, and I he didn't address that specifically when he sent me this draft. So I will make another comment because those are the greatest myself to bring up all of those items that were not addressed in that draft Yeah. To at least ask him where is that because they weren't allowed by code, or is that because

Right. And the other one was the the advertising. No no leaves, I guess, was the big thing. No marijuana leaves in the in the advertising. Yeah. No. No marijuana leaves. I mean, most of the places that I've seen out of state No cartoon. No cartoon. And Mm-mm. And overseas Well is a is a green cross, like a red like the red cross, except it's green. Which is great. So, you know, right away, they got the green medicine, whatever that means.

So Yeah. Okay. So I will inquire about restricting the hours of operation and restricting the advertising.

Yeah. If that was

If he if he had saw that and excluded on purpose or if he just missed it. I mean,

I I've really the the hours are important, and the advertising is really important. I'm not sure if you have all seen the sign in North Logan where the old Sonic used to be. We can see that one. Oh my goodness. I don't know if anyone realized what they they put on that sign, but I'm sure the per person that made that sign knew exactly what they were doing.

I mean, I I So it is pronounced Poe.

No. It's not. You know it's not.

Yeah. I wish it was foe.

I had a citizen tell me that they thought it was a joke. But, like Well, that's what I'm thinking too. They just wanna It's really not going anywhere. No.

It's it's a real business. So It's also hilarious.

It is in a demented sort of way, and I was laughing too, to be honest. Until your until your That's where we are. Five year old is sounding out how to talk Yeah. How to say it. How to read. Did you wanna go over the rest of the

I mean, the rest of it is you got section e that says that there's a conflict between our ordinance and the Utah code. The Utah code wins that fight. Section two is a severability clause, which says if any section of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the court, such decision shall not affect the rest of the ordinance, which is a pretty standard clause. Okay. And then the ordinance takes place effective as soon as it's adopted. That's the rest of it. So the really, the heart of the issue is section c, and I have all these comments written down and ready to ask the city attorney next time I talk to him. Thank you. And I would say, like,

once you get those in there, I think it's fine to hear from the public. We can still make changes that day. And even after we come up with a draft and send it on to city council, they almost always on brand new ordinances, they almost always tweak it a little bit too. Right. So I would say you could schedule the public hearing, maybe not July 2 because people would be out of town. Yeah. You probably don't I don't know if you have that time anyway. But And, again, this isn't

something that the city needs to adopt right now. Like, we don't have an application that's incoming and impending. It's just something that our neighbors were victim to, and so we don't wanna have the same situation happen to us. So it's just on the forefront of our minds as staff, and that's why we're working on it. So if we wanna have the public hearing at the next meeting or wait until mid July, it's probably fine either way. Just let's not put this off I'd like to more than we have to. I know. I would do the second one in July. The second one in July.

The July?

Like, six second meeting. The sixteenth. The sixteenth?

I'd like to K. Not all that. What other comments did you get from people? Did you wanna share them? No?

Probably most of them are why would the city allow this? And the answer is because the state No. No. No. It was that I was such a square.

Not Oh, that we should be allowing this. That I'm a prude, and I'm a square, and how dare I even put limitations, and it should be open twenty four hours. That was the big one is that it should be open twenty four hours. And I'm being discriminatory because I only wanna open certain hours.

Yeah. I think the public hearing will be interesting. I think we did. It'll be fun. But we also know that even if the room is packed, that's not the whole city. Like, that's people who care about this particular issue, not necessarily reflective of how everybody in the whole city feels before they all get here. Let's say that. Then they need to show up.

Should put that on the back and see what's that?

Yeah.

I need a different one that says, don't take it personally.

Well, we all need that. So just as a reminder for the planning commission, when we schedule public hearings, the planning commission previously asked us to send out a text message radius notification around rezoned properties. We don't do any additional noticing for other public hearings. So if you wanna get other word out besides the required notices by the state and by our ordinances, I recommend you contact your friends and neighbors and tell them that

the public hearing is happening. Can we put it in the newsletter? Forever. Yeah. And you'll get, like, more people than you used to think. What was really great thing to start doing is to put it in the newsletter. You don't you just don't all you don't It happened at. A newsletter has one deadline a month. One that I know, and we've got two. I think so it makes it hard. Yeah. Well, even if we could put it on the socials, we could put it on the socials.

So then we have to start posting all public hearings that way. I mean k. You come to work in the office. I will create the I will create the post. You just have to send it. Well, so one of the things on my list of things that we've the commission's been asking to look at for a while is our public hearing and public noticing requirements. If you want, I can get that on a really soon agenda, and we can review

what the ordinance is around public noticing requirements and start talking about if that needs to be changed. Let's do that because that is one complaint that I've heard from residences is that they don't feel like they know what's going on even though I know where they can go to find the information.

Right. And my response to everybody who asks that all the time is how would you like to be contacted? And, generally, they say social media Yeah. Email, text message. And I'm like, we do all of those things. So so

anyway. Yeah. How did you how did they know about it? How did they know we were talking about it with people that talked to you? Because somebody said something. Work it to rain. Yeah.

And we that person will remain nameless because they are probably watching them too.

Well and it's fine. I'm I'm K. Yeah. I'm just saying sign up for the email alerts. Or You can see every agenda and whether you're interested in coming or not.

Yeah. And then conveying So decision maker. Colette, if you will remind me and maybe Mikael too on our next planning commission agenda, let's just get the public notice ordinance so we can review it and have a discussion about if that's something that we want to For the sixteenth. Change. Or after the sixteenth because I won't be here the second. Okay. So for the sixteenth.

Yeah. Sometimes we don't get to those discussion items, but it could be on there in case there's time. We'll see how long the public hearing goes.

Are we There's all good with the Cannabis.

We don't have to motion. Cannabis

medical cannabis?

So, again, it's it's a discussion item. You don't necessarily need to vote to table it because you can't vote to a No. I'm not table. I'm just asking if there's any more discussion. Okay. If not, we'll move on. I like questions posed. K. K. Colette had a couple more that I've added on here, which is can we limit the total of number of facilities like a per capita type thing? So I will also ask that of the city term. One per 100,000. That was in the original draft that I Buzz. Through. I wanna say it was every You can even Like, 60,000

people or something like that. I can't remember what it was, but that was in the original draft that I sent through. 60,000

people. I like that. It was We won't get there for a long time. Well, I just copied it off at Draper's. K.

You really Has anyone heard if there's been any issues with the current pharmacies in town? Has there been any increase in crime around them? Has there been anything that's of note that or concern that would would drive us to do anything more stringent or or

not worry about it? I don't know. That would be an excellent question for the chief of police. He attends all the city council meetings, so we could ask him if he's seen any increased traffic around

the facilities that exist in North Logan. I I don't know if this their accounts. Yeah. If the other chiefs of police get together and talk about these things and say, hey. Here's a real problem that's coming up or here's Oh, they do. I'm sure they've got some sort of breakfast

that they go to. Pepper on breakfast that they call the

The Mavericks. Yeah.

I have information on the ag side of it, on the growing side of it, if you're interested in that. But if we're just talking pharmacies, I don't think he addressed that. Because I reached out to Mark Ashcroft of the extension, USU extension, and he's he's in charge of overseeing growing it. So if you care about growing it, I have everything he said. But if it's if we're just talking pharmacies, I don't have anything. This is just pharmacies, but do we need an ordinance for production?

I think that would be a good idea.

Yeah. We could probably draft something up.

And then this this airing mistake. Be super helpful. Do you want me to hand read what he said? No. Let's put it on the agenda to to look at an ordinance for production because they're gonna be two separate things.

Should just be only an industrial loan. Absolutely. Mostly what he said is a bunch of people jumped onto it and lost a ton of money For sure. Like, it's really it's we don't have the

climate for it. Because in the original in the original ordinance draft, it does state that there can be no production on-site.

Right. K. Yeah. I don't I have to look into that, see if we want a separate ordinance for that. But let's treat them separately so that we can Mhmm. If we if we wanna pass the first one, we can do that before we worry about the second one. They're not tied together, so we don't get stuck Absolutely. Without doing that. I don't wanna get stuck. Alright. Any other comments about the cannabis discussion? Alright. Let's move on to the gravel pits.

Yep.

I think we discovered that we don't have to allow a permanent gravel pit. We've already got our ordinances Mhmm. Up well. You know, they're they're designed well enough so that we don't have to allow a gravel pit.

Yeah. So based on your emails back and forth with the state property rights ombudsman, a permanent gravel pit, it has to be declared a Like a sensitive area or something like that. Like a essential resource production zone. Something of that Critical resources. Critical resources. And it's a legislative decision of the city. It's almost like a zone that has to be assigned to it. And so the city gets leeway with assigning that to it, and the state has very strict rules regarding that designation, what they can and can't do. And so the property rights ombudsman's email basically said, yeah. I wouldn't worry too much about adopting an ordinance for gravel pits as a city because the state code is pretty comprehensive and thorough with that. So what's we're looking at here is a draft ordinance that talks about temporary gravel pits. We've had a couple developments come through where they wanted to set up rock crushers and things as while they're doing their excavation on their property to create gravel and materials. The city granted one conditional use permit to the lone cedar development to do that, but the requirement was that all those materials had to stay within their construction site and be used for their projects. As far as we know, they are still doing that. We have our public works watching them pretty closely to make sure they comply with that requirement. And so this is the same idea. We would allow a project to become a temporary gravel pit if they wanted to harvest materials from a site to be used With what it says right here, said gravel pit shall only be permitted in order to provide materials used on the approved development or subdivision site related to infrastructure improvement installation or individual lot improvements. So if they wanted to for us, for a subdivision, if they said, hey. We also have this parcel over here that we'd like to harvest gravel from, This ordinance gives us this set of rules for how the city could allow that to happen. So we could just go through these one by one. So the following regulations apply distance to dwellings, mining operations, including extraction, stockpiling, staging, crushing shall be located a minimum of 500 feet away from an existing dwelling. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7AM to 7PM, so that's more strict than our noise ordinance. Transportation of materials off-site is prohibited. Only roadways within the development area shall be used for moving materials. So they can only use the developer's roads they built for their project to transfer the materials. The operation has to meet all county, state, and federal requirements for safety, noise, erosion, and dust control. They have to prepare and submit a site plan by a surveyor and or engineer showing all the proposed uses on the site, boundaries, extraction areas. They have to present a reclamation plan, which basically means once they're done, how are they gonna make it look pretty again and not just like an ugly scar? They They have to present an estimated budget for reclamation and then bond with the city for that. In case they decide to cut and run and leave their ugly scar, we'll have money to go in and do the reclamation for them. And then the conditions for partial release, if they do the reclamation, we can release part of that bond back to them in appropriate increments. There's a time limit, so they have to get the reclamation done within six months of expiration of their temporary permit or discontinued use of the pit. The let's see. I'm trying to see if there remember if there's any other sections that are particularly interesting. I don't think I think the rest of this is just applicability and approvals. The permit's only good for one year. At that point, they gotta come in and get it extended. An approval has gotta be from the planning commission for an extension.

Who who prepared this document for us? Our city attorney.

And the last point is any agreement is re recorded with the property. So

So even if one developer sold out to another, the next developer could use it.

Right. And also see that their permit has expired, and they need to come in and get a new one.

But it's not a conditional use permit?

It doesn't appear to be. This appears to be we would have to create a new form, a new type of permit within just as the city staff, we'd have to create that, but that's not too hard to do. Oh, because I guess conditional use permits don't end. Is that the difference? Yeah. Like, condition conditional use permit follows the land, not the owner. Yeah. So if somebody were to come in and get a conditional use permit for well, for example, the loan cedar development got a conditional use permit to use a rock crusher to create landscape materials for their property. That doesn't necessarily go away. They might stop harvesting those materials once all their houses are built, so they have no use for it. But now in perpetuity, if that property were to be bulldozed and redeveloped, they could bring out another rock crusher and say, hey. The city told us back in 2023 that we could do this, so we're gonna do it again. And under this, they would be prevented from doing that? Right. Under this year. It would be a separate type of agreement that's only good for one year, and then they have to come in and get an extension. Okay.

I was sorry. Are you taking discussion?

Yes. Yes.

The only thing I wondered about was the the reclamation. I love the reclamation. I'm worried about the six month limit. I'm imagining them finishing at the end of summer or fall, and then you're saying they have the six months of winter to get it back looking nice. But then they can ask request for an extension. So is that what they would have to do if they finished in the fall? They'd have to ask for an extension? They didn't wanna work all winter

long. And I don't know if we could even judge a a this a reclamation is to make sure it met some sort of standard, which Got a battery. You know,

in the wintertime, how do you do that? Yeah. I mean,

what is the what is is there a standard for reclamation? Just what the plan is.

It does have to be approved by the city engineers. They have to submit a plan that we kinda like our landscaping, how they submit a plan. I do think it's supposed to under that little c under 12, I think it's supposed to say the city's fee schedule, not their fine schedule. Or maybe, I guess, fees and fines would be the same thing. We call it our fee schedule, so you're right. It would be we need to change that to fines. And do we have to set that fee now? I mean, with this, we probably have to set a fee to it.

Yeah.

He's done and doing a lot of work. I know. We're not being home watching TV. She works really hard.

Mhmm. Alright. So I'm just gonna add it to It shows Dawnia making all these updates. Oh, yeah. Dawnia, we're signed in to her profile on here. So She's working really hard today. She does work very hard. I I will not take that away. Request.

Alright. Five k.

So before we started making jokes, what were we talking about? I'm gonna write a comment.

The fee schedule or the fine schedule? Yep. Yep. Got it. So

we'll need

And I just hate to send someone to the fee schedule and have it not be on the fee schedule.

Fee for so this is just a note for me that if if the commission's okay with this and we move it forward, the city staff will need to produce a form and a recommended fee that will be approved either with this by the city council or in or shortly thereafter. Right. So that note is for me.

K. I would probably get comments

on the Oh, I'm saying. I I mean, I I don't have enough knowledge or background to know what's not being considered, but it sounds like this pretty much forces this into just situations like that development you keep mentioning, which is just up from my house, and I've seen that too. So I know Mhmm. If I mean, it's it's not like anybody can just come in and be like, I'm gonna make a gravel pit and sell the sell the material. Like, it it's literally just for being developed on-site and used there. Right. And I I will say that the Rendezvous project, which we've talked about a little bit, they're getting ready to

do a submission maybe before the end of the year. They have proposed to the city that they would like to do something like this. So, again, this is one where we have a project that may be coming, so that's why we wanna get this ordinance done in a relatively speedy manner. So if we do get that application, we have something in place that we can force them to go through those things. Dates? It's close to your house. You say it's the one that They're one it's what's the name of it again? Yeah. They Cedar. Something. Lone Cedar. Lone Cedar. Is that the one that's, like, the

conservation area? Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, just up from where I live, they've got a bunch of crushers and things like that. They've been up there for however long the development's been going. But Yeah. They're not taking stuff off the site. Right. Like, it's all bam right there being used. See, they don't even really notice it. Which is Are we talking the out one? Or are we talking I'm sorry. No. No. This is At the top of 200 South?

Up up the roundabout. Oh, nearly right next. Up up. Yeah. That awesome use of the roundabout. Up the This one. The pass to the east of the roundabout. Oh, yeah. Yeah. My house is right there. Yeah. And I I'm literally right Yeah. There where the e is. I can't hear anything.

Cool.

That's good. Okay. How many trucks are not going by your house, Mike. No. There are a ton of trucks. But this if it powers the traffic through the There are a lot of trucks, but I wouldn't say that it's, like, a crazy amount. Like, we still have our free range children that are everywhere, and I haven't noticed anything crazy.

K. I I think it's a fantastic idea. Anything that can reduce the number of big trucks that are going up and down either Hyde Park Lane or 200 South or any other one that

is used often by these trucks would be wonderful. Mhmm. Does that, sorry, does that extension come through the planning commission, or can that be done through the staff?

So that's what the draft ordinance says is it's done by the planning commission. Ship grant extension? Oh, yeah. Sorry. Which is probably a good thing. Just another responsibility.

Sorry. Okay. Let's push that out. I still have one.

Yes, please, Ned. Okay. The first one is on the 500 feet from existing dwellings. I should probably say something like 500 feet from existing and anything that's been permitted. So if somebody's building a house on the lot that's right next to where they're gonna do it Mhmm. They shouldn't have to live with a gravel pit. Well,

I guess the question is

yeah. How long does the gravel pitch stay there? Does it stay there? It's one year. It's a one year. And then that's so that's the second part of my thing. Then every year, when we do the extension, all the requirements have to be met. Agreed. Again. Again. Reviewed and met again. So, like, the bond the bond number has to be reevaluated. Mhmm. And there's distances. All the requirements above have to be reevaluated. So when they can get their next extension. So they can't That's not an extension.

So for So resubmission.

Resubmission. Okay. Because the one up in loan one year, and then they have to reapply. Right. Because the one up in loan Cedar would not get approved again because there are homes going in on that may on that road. That's that's yeah. That's what I'm wondering. That's not fair to have a build a house, that means you have to relocate your your rock Yeah. But they're also the ones selling a lot, so they should be aware that that's going to be the situation. Yeah. And in in theory, typically, when we talk about these kind of

disruptions we talked about this before with, like, the transition zone that if you're moving in and you have a bare piece of ground next to you, there's kind of an expectation whether it's misguided or not that it's gonna stay bare. But if you're going to look at your lot and there's a rock crusher operating a 100 feet away, it's kinda like, oh, okay. Well, I'm gonna build my house, and there may be a rock crusher still there when I move in. So I if you want me to pat put that in there and see if we can do that with the city attorney, I'm happy to do that, but I just don't know if that's a requirement that we necessarily need to have. I think it is something we need to look at with the city attorney because that would really like, you see a rock crusher, but you don't think it's gonna be there indefinitely. Yeah. And so then, I guess, it would just be up to the planning commission when they come in and it's year five of renewal to just be like,

you're you're done. Well, I I think maybe five years. Thing just it's only good for one year, and then you gotta reapply.

But I go back to that six month of getting it reclaimed and saying they may need that ex that extension to get it looking good again if they used it to the end of the season. Six months. A six month is outside of the use of the crusher. Right. Right. So that's And I above and beyond So it's eighteen. The year six months after their permit expires. They have to Mhmm. Clean it up. Yeah. So I'm saying, let's say they have it September to September Mhmm. And then you're giving them until, what, May, March to get it? Over the winter, they have to get it gonna be big gravel pits. I mean, he's gotta be pretty close based. They also need to be held to a standard. Right. Right. And and we need to hold them to that standard.

So if you want if the whole commission agrees, I'm happy to add that comment in there to bring it up with the city attorney on if we can include permitted lots. Although, with that so just trying to think of your comment that you said at that point, it's a new application because it's not the same. So they come in for renewal, then we're telling them, well, you can't have it here anymore because there's a new house here. That's not necessarily the same

permit. That would be a different set of conditions. You just said you don't hear it. You said you're right there, and you don't notice it. But I'm putting you more in Boise. It's not in my backyard. If I specifically build that house

like, we had looked at homes Does that have to be because I'm I'm had built the home right there, I would not think, oh, that gravel rock crusher thing is gonna be there indefinitely. I would think, oh, they're moving gravel because they sold me this lot. All of these are already platted. That's going to be moved. There's a time frame on that. We can't

say it could be there forever. They can't keep it there either because they can't sell the lot or the lots that it's on.

So I don't it's the problem with having to re up it. They will they're gonna wanna have to move it anyways.

Yeah. Maybe I need to drive up You had a question. Sit there. I was just wondering if instead of existing dwelling, it could be something like property line. The case in point I'm using just real quick is I have a lot that's not far from the ones we're talking about, and there's some undeveloped land. There are lots, but they're not supposed to be built on, but I could see somebody if they wanted to using this to come put a rock crusher right on my property line. And if I wanna start building in the next couple of months, then I've gotta deal with that. And so I'm wondering if we can just say property lines. So then I don't have to worry about it. Nobody else does either. It's like Absolutely. Your property is protected because you're at least 500 feet away, and it's I mean, it's still an eyesore, but it's not right in your backdoor. Right. Right.

So locate a minimum of 500 feet from the property line of any existing dwelling? Any of them must be permitted.

Embedded dwelling. Existing and

dwelling.

Because if DJ goes and pulls a building permit, we need to take that into account for that. I'm just saying you even if As an example. Oh, but that's same property line, period. But that's my concern is if we're

if at the time of application woah. Sorry. If at the time of application, there was only the existing dwellings, and then when they come to re up, there's been three building permits taken out. I don't think it at that point, I think Melinda's right. That would be it wouldn't be fair to have a continuation of the same permit if we're giving it a new set of rules and saying, hey. There's three new houses, so we can't you have to reapply.

So do we change it from renewal to reapply?

I mean, we are trying to emphasize it's temporary. Right. Well, I They and they need to move. To do that, I'd like to I'd like to suggest maybe in '12 b where it says the planning commission shall grant extension of set approval in one year increments. I'd like to make that up to one year increments, so it doesn't have to be a full year and no more than two Consensus. Two renewals to limit it to a maximum of three years.

Well, on that shall means they will grant the extension. It doesn't say they the the planning commission may grant the extension. It's saying if they continue to use it consistently Yeah. Then the planning commission will grant that extension. Do we want that to be shall? No. No. We need to be may.

We don't wanna be held to something. To know something. We don't want to. And cease. We need to give Ned all his outs. Not Ben cease. Give any power away, then we can. Ned likes his opponent.

I do think you need to make it a some kind of renewal thing because you don't wanna make them go Yeah. Do the reclamation

thing. Yeah. That'd be a whole new reclamation plan. Yeah. Which means they haven't completed the first reclamation plan. Right. So they have to be part of the renewal plan. It has to be a renewal. So they can't and they can't be moving that equipment every year. I mean, it But it is it is mobile loans. I think they Yeah. But it's mobile to a point. Right. But every time you move it, you you take time off of its life expectancy.

I I know. But So Yeah. And if that if it was if they knew the requirements in advance, the fact that I didn't do the cost analysis. Oh, absolutely. And they're gonna wanna move it because they're gonna wanna sell the lot that it's placed on. Right. Because that for lots.

Lots. Exactly. They've moved it, I would say, six times in the last year and a half. Oh, they have moved it? It's oh, yeah. It's been moved. My little five year old watches it.

Because it's cool. Because it's cool. Seems like there needs to be some kind of standard for the reclamation because we just don't want them to put a half inch of topsoil and say, yeah. We got it. You know? We're So there there is something written there, and it talks about it. And I guess we're the ones that decide whether or not Well, the city engineers proves it, but is there some standard that they come in and say, we're gonna put a half inch of topsoil on this gravel Well, it says oak trees. Says it has to look

similar to what it did.

We talked to somebody that I'll let you know. To talk about. Mikael, if you could do that. Might be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't reclamation typically mean restoring it back to the way it was when we're talking about land use codes? Right.

When you're talking about land use codes, we're not going clear to mining standards or anything like that. But Right. You definitely need to decide who's calling that condition

Mhmm.

By whose standards. Right? Are we taking before and after photos and getting very detailed about it, or are we letting nature reclaim this area, or is it gonna be built on?

I like the idea of photos. Photos are so easy to get now. You know? So what I mean, what it says under six is the developer shall be required to reclaim the site to substantially similar conditions that existed previous to the gravel pit or to another allowed use in the zone. Yeah. That sounds But yeah. I mean, we're like, wait. What did it look like before? You know, when they're saying, hey. This is what it looked like. We're like, I don't think that's what it looked like. I can't like the idea of photos.

Maybe we make that part of the reclamation plan they have to provide before photos. I mean but think about it. If if it was really

crappy before and had a stop steep drop off, you wouldn't wanna have to have make him reclaim it to that. You wanna make him I think that gradual drop off and enough stop stop.

Decided by the engineer. Because, of course, when it's done, it's still gonna have to meet drainage and

all the engineering standards to the subdivision. Right. And it and it might be that the reclamation site becomes, like, the open space for the project where they level it out and it becomes drainage

or park or something. Well, the one up by the

Aggie Villages just become houses.

Right? Right. So, I mean well, that's probably realistically gonna be a lot of it. I mean, you look at the Lone Cedar development. We keep using that one because that's an existing one. Everywhere that they've harvested the gravel has now become lots to build on. So in reality, that it's probably gonna be mostly it's gonna become front and backyards.

Right.

That's what Steve Parkinson wants to do with Skyview Hill or he did years ago. Wanted to excavate the gravel That's right. And then it would be flat enough to build a subdivision up there. We've had other developers come in and

inquire about doing the same thing, which led to our conversation with the ombudsman. So it

there's been multiple. I mean I mean, it just seems like and maybe the engineer can decide on what specific three or four bullets he wants to put in there for reclamation on slow topsoil. But vegetation probably doesn't matter unless it's gonna

not be built on within a year or two because they're just gonna dose it anyway. But I Well, but I don't I'm missing the part where it says the engineer approves the reclamation plan. It's I think it's all approved by the planning commission. Right. An engineer prepares the reclamation plan, but the only thing that I see that's approved by the city engineer is the bond amount.

Yeah. We're we're the ones that approve that reclamation plan. Yeah.

Said said plan shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor and or engineer and shall indicate proposed final slopes, placement and depths of topsoil, soil and slope stability calculations, and proposed vegetation materials to be used. So an engineer is gonna prepare it or a survey surveyor and present it to us who don't know anything about that. Well, Ned does.

Yeah. Well and But we're gonna be in the same boat we were with two weeks ago where the guy says, well, there's no standard. And so my here's my here's my

Interpretation. Have a a Well, the standard is right there. Slope, and that's my what we're doing. I'm I'm sorry. But the the standard is there, and it is similar conditions? Substantially similar conditions that existed previous to the gravel pit, which means so if you probably required So in this list of to a use to another allowed use in the zone so they could then make it into a building lot that that is part of that zone.

Are you guys warm? Sure you're getting you're gonna get what you want. You guys too warm? Yeah. I'm hot. I just opened this to get the help to get the air flowing. He hit the cooler button here, and it stopped. I just opened the ice city's gotta pay their bills. Like Yeah.

Obviously, they're paying the city council too much money every month. Is it behind the TV?

This is a lot. That's a good laugh. Ask Dave. Marcus,

I would suggest including in there that whatever engineer prepares the plan also inspect. Inspects the final result to make sure that No. His plan was followed.

Did we have a little details

on this maybe? Is that a common

thing to do with these things?

When you have an engineering firm, you know, say we need to build it this way, and then they give it to a builder, and the builder goes, ta da. Did they build it exactly how the engineer said, or did they just thought they'd be best they could with that plan. Right? The engineer that designs it needs to be the one who says, yes. This was done the way that it was supposed to be done.

Mhmm.

K. Let's see.

No. Let's come on.

I might have to take some time to think about how to word that. I'm just gonna put a comment in here so you you can help me figure out how we're gonna word that. Yeah. K. K. So the the comment from our new city planner was that we probably should put an item in here that says that the engineer who prepared the reclamation plan should also have some kind of sign off Please. After the fact Thank you very much. To make sure that the plan was followed. Good. I'm So covered. I'm gonna add a comment. I'm gonna add a comment in here to do that, and I we will work on getting that language in here. K. We've talked a lot about this.

Okay. I got a question about what you just wrote. I get that the the engineer will say, okay. This is this is what I envisioned. It's done. But that that engineer doesn't work for the city.

So maybe instead of signed off So we say reviewed.

I think it's probably part of the bond release. Part of the bond If we would put it as part of the bond release, maybe.

Condition of

release of the bond? Condition of release of the bond. As approved by the city engineer is in there. Yeah. Well, as approved by the engineer who designed the plan.

And or maybe just reviewed by the engineer who designed the plan because they don't That it was completed to Represent the city, but Right. That they've reviewed it and said, yes. This was accurate to the plan that I presented.

Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Because, again, my concern is that that engineer that develops the plan does not belong to the city. He doesn't work for the city. Okay. He works for the developer. So him saying, yep. We did it all Is I guess, could be a requirement, but it still needs to be reviewed or inspected by someone in the city to

to get the the bond released. Yeah. So Mikhail and I will work on figuring out a good way to word that. I think right now, what I would stick to is just putting something in there that should be reviewed by the third party engineer or the not the third party, but the developer engineer. So they don't have, like, a sign off signature block, but we would want a word from them if their plan was followed or not. K.

Now as far as closing closeout of the, you know, end of the use of the the mining equipment, the crusher, or whatever, which is six months before the required reclamation has to be completed. Never mind. I'm old. I can't remember what I was gonna say. Something about oh, did we put in there that we don't it doesn't need to be a full year, and we only want to approve a certain amount of renewals?

Oh, I don't have it in here. Do

you do you wanna put in there that this

mostly agree

on? One year increments.

And I I suggest maybe up to one year. And does it have to be shall? May.

It'd be a May. I think you already took notes on that part, didn't you? No. No. May. Oh, sorry. I'm still looking at mine.

Mine doesn't have I can't get the comments up on my K. Yeah.

So the planning commission may grant extension of set approval in up to one year increments while the development is ongoing and has not been ceased for longer than when you owe. I see what the I see why they put the language in there. Basically, I think what the attorney was trying to say is it's probably unfair to a developer if they're counting on that mining operation to create flat ground for their future lots for them to come back to the city mid project and say, hey. I need my one year renewal to go finish my subdivision. The city says, no. You can't have it. And then he's stuck with half a subdivision that he can't develop, which would leave us in pretty hot water.

So I can see why that done shall instead of May. In May. Right. And Because they've continuously used it. Right. And they have the conditions to meet that

coming right after that where it says the operation has been ongoing and has not stopped. And So if the developer's actively building the project, it would be unfair for the city to revoke that permit while they're still undergoing their process. That's

what that's talking about. As long as they haven't violated anything any other parts of the agreement. If they violated something, then you can bring it back.

I think what we could do is add another sentence after that that says something like, if the developer has not met those requirements, then the city may revoke or Not grant. May not grant the extension. I think that's what we probably need to do. So let me Undo. Undo those.

How long has Lone Cedar

had theirs? It's a conditional use permit. So Oh, they can have it forever. But how long has it been? The since they started construction, which was They had a movie two years ago. Not quite two years ago? Add. K. So we'll have that language in there. K.

Do we have enough for the the lawyer to look at to leave this alone? K. Yeah. Can we move on to the the last item on the agenda? Everyone okay with that? The most fun. Yep. Okay. Transition zone.

Alright. So before we dive into what we have so far with the edit, I wanna just take a minute to review what the city staff took as the goals for the zone from our brainstorming session to make sure we're all on the same page. So first and foremost, I think commission wants to keep the idea of the transition of housing. So going from large lot single family using a smaller single family and or townhome and transitioning into a higher density with commercial. Right? That's the number one goal of the zone. Everybody agrees? K. There was a lot of talk last time about parking in streets, about having slow down traffic and not heat up so much room with asphalt. And so that was a big consideration that we made when looking at this. Design standards, there was talk about requiring garages. We haven't addressed that quite yet. There's also a lot of talk about having good setbacks to allow for breathing room between the units and focusing on smaller lot single family. Is that accurate?

Or it's like Yeah. Oh, well, why are we saying single

family if number seven says talks about a mix?

Well, that's why it's number seven because Okay. That's, like, low on on the priority lists as far as I can remember. Yeah. I I would say five, six, and seven are the ones that we're kind of like, ah, well, maybe we could do this, but we're not as worried about these things. So it's having commercial uses, professional uses or offices, and then having a unit mix. Based on what I can remember from the conversation with the planning commission, it wasn't super important that we had those three items if we didn't have to. Am I correct?

Yes. Well, I know that the commercial has always been an issue and always been a desire of the mayor just because of the of the revenue that it it produces. So we don't wanna disc discourage it, but I think we need to be particular in what we allow.

Well, still, someone's gonna have to choose this zone over mixed use.

Right? Whatever else they want to do. Whatever else they would request. Yep. K. So the reason why I went through this I mean, I know that you all know this, but I'm gonna be using this when we present this final draft, whatever it is, to the city council so they understand the thought process behind it as well. So there's the spiel. Alright. So here is the rewrite as it sits today, and this is rough draft. I haven't had as much time as I would like to have worked on it. So this morning, Mikael and I took quite a bit of time to really discuss it and make a bunch of edits that we felt like moved this in the right direction. And based on our conversation tonight, we'll set aside more time in the coming weeks to modify it further in preparation of the public hearing. So first and foremost, we have changed it from being a mix of units to single family only zone. And maybe I'll start by going down to the site development standards table and looking at that. So we've taken out all of the zoning variables that we the code had built into it and just said that this zone will be six units per acre. So potentially a smidge more dense than our senior PUDs, but it would get us really close to that point one units per acre goal. It's the low end of that range that the planning commission gave, but it's we start there. The reason for that is when we were looking at the senior PUD developments that were near the one that's well, what's that one called down by the high school? Cove. The Cove. We looked a lot at that one when we were brainstorming how to make a smaller lot zone really functional and, attractive for a neighborhood option. So in keeping a smaller lot frontage than those allow, we thought we probably should increase the density a little bit more to promote affordability. The another big question that came up was open space. We decided that it might be good to implement the same rules for open space that we have in the mixed use zone. So, overall, a lower open space requirement than the senior PUDs, but add in the stipulation that more than half of that needs to be a specific amenity. What we've what we've noticed is in the PUDs around town, typically in the 55 and older communities, you'll have these huge green spaces and and grassy areas. And more than once, we've had HOA boards come to the city and say, can we just build another house or two? Because nobody uses that grass. So the idea here is we shrink the total open space requirement, but in order to not have so much grassy area that these neighborhoods may not use, we would force more amenity spaces that you know, you have a park or with a playground or a sport court or something instead of just grass that they have to go out and mow. How are we doing so far?

On the new mixed use, we have all the space requirement around the houses, you know, the Yep.

That part of this. So with this one where each of the individual houses is gonna have setbacks for their lot. So since we took out the townhomes, these are all gonna be single family houses. Okay. They're gonna be really small lot. Setbacks will take care of. Right. And that's another discussion that we probably need to have, we being the staff with the planning commission, is the setbacks. We talked about having a comfortable setback so the houses weren't, you know, reaching out the window and high fiving your neighbor from their window. But we also don't want a setback so big that the only thing you can fit in there is a one bedroom, tiny, tiny house. So looking at the senior PUDs and maybe I'll pull this up just to start our discussion here. And when you look at them, the setbacks between the houses are 16 feet. Some of the houses are right up against the property line, but the spacing between them is approximately 16 feet between every house. What are the thoughts of the planning commission about if we kept the same ish setbacks of 16 feet, but we had smaller lot sizes, potentially would be forcing them to build a smaller house even than what you see here with the senior PUD. Thoughts or concerns about that?

I would say drive by. Go down that street. See how it feels. And in my mind, it's sufficient. Like, it's plenty for people who don't live having a huge yard to mow or they don't need a big garden like their grandparents had. They don't have horses. I think they're happy to have their own walls. Like, it's so much nicer than being in a townhome. Just having your own walls and even a little bit of a space is a 100 times better than sharing a wall with someone. If,

If, yeah, if you're talking about the same amount of square footage, whether you're sharing a wall or not, I think almost everybody in the world would rather have their own space.

So, I mean, are you saying maybe eight foot set per prop to the property line and then not then because you don't know where the next one's gonna build if you because they're not all being built at the same time. They're not gonna give you the same as the 16 you got here. Yeah. I mean, we could adopt similar language to what's in the

55 plus ordinance right now, which I think it says eight foot as the site setback.

Or sixteen zero. Or sixteen zero. Well, a long time it said eight and eight or sixteen zero. Yeah. And we've modified

the wording a little bit with our code update, but it still basically says eight foot, minimum, but 16 between dwellings.

K. Well, I think you only need to say eight foot minimum. Just leave it at that.

Sixteen's automatic then. Well, yeah, it depends on what you're after, like eight feet from each side. But if you do the zero sixteen, it makes for a space for a driveway. Everybody to have a driveway on one side. I think that's why the zero sixteen Mhmm. Works, like, down in the legends. Those are zero sixteen.

That's the one that's almost in North Logan? Uh-huh. Let me go find that.

Yeah. To the right. That leisure loop. Yep. So these are built on a zero sixteen. Well, they're not necessarily using that space for a driveway, are they? Nobody is there for all that. Well, the driveways are on the zero side. Yeah? I mean, I I just So you're right. It's the same effect.

K? Yeah. Because you don't they may not all be built. They may sell a lot off have a different builder build the next one. So Correct. As opposed to these were all built by the Southern Builder.

Right.

So you look at these lots, and there's 60 feet of frontage. So what is being proposed in the draft is having a 50 foot minimum frontage. So we're taking 10 feet off of the required frontage. But But then if we keep the same setbacks, that means we're reducing the total size of house that somebody could build by another 10 feet. So all the senior PUDs were 60 feet. So look at look at the 55 plus communities in Hyde Park and picture that shrunk by another 10 feet, and that's what we've put in here to kinda graduate to the next tier of the size and housing? About 55. That's the question. I mean, I mean, it seems like a pretty good sized job. That will that's what is being asked of the planning commission.

We we can do whatever we want.

Right. I mean, the idea so if we keep it at 60, we're pretty close to just our standard r five zone. And so at that point, we might as well just have the r five be our go to for, like, a transition, which may or may yeah. You don't you can have a little bit of townhomes in the r five, but you don't have to. And so at that point, why are we messing with the rewrite of the transition zone? Let's just say do the r five for transition. How about if we go to 55 and then go 50 for when we try to do the bonus thing and give that bonus?

Yeah. 10 p seems like quite a big chunk.

I for me, it's it's trying to it's trying to allow something for someone who doesn't have as much money. They can't afford as big as they want someday. I really am looking for starter homes. Where can someone build a smaller home on a smaller lot? And, yep, I think they hope to move to a bigger home on a bigger lot. I I would like to go back to at least an option of a starter home, and maybe no developer will come in to build it. Maybe no one will actually buy them. I don't know. But I'd sure like to offer it.

Oh, I think they'll be purchased, and I think that they will be sold quickly. Because it's not just the starter home. It's also empty nesters. It's college students. I mean,

I would love a development that's cottage type homes that are smaller on a smaller footprint. And And that's where my brother lives in Alabama. He lives in what he calls I said, is that a 55 and older community? And he said he called it a n o something. It's a naturally occurring, like, senior community or something. Right. And so yeah. I mean, it's most people in his neighborhood happen to be, you know, 55 and older, but not because it was It's not man in the it's not in the ordinance. Right. Just the type of homes and lots where people are done doing yards. They want a little space. So it ends up being older people, and it's home's really nice and plenty big.

But Well, I'll just use that one for example because that's my parents' house. And it's got a two car garage, and then it's got a small entryway and then a little kitchen to take the width. And it's all that's all pretty tight. I mean, once you get a two car garage, you there's not much left for that little entryway and the kitchen. So now if you take 10 feet out of the kitchen Mhmm. It's there's not much left there other than maybe you just have a garage and then an entry, and then you have to push everything to the back.

Do we

do we know square footage of these, like, an estimate of the square footage of one of these homes? Can you click in? It could be 1,200

square feet, I would guess. I bet it's I don't think you can get the size of the home.

You should be able to get the square footage. Do you have a size of the square feet? 2,300.

I think. I also learned

So it's It does 23. Basement. 20 like, that one. That one doesn't include That doesn't have a lot of has two floors. Would that include garage. That's 23. Yeah. No. It does not include Unless it got unless it's lifted off. Okay. So this one's probably single level. So it's 141428.

There you go. That makes sense. That The other one may have a basement or a second one. It probably has a second level. So Most of those in that one do not have a So 1,400

square foot home is not is over the by any means. That is complete 1,400 square feet is completely livable and sellable.

In fact Yeah. Sell quickly. Well, that's what I think. There's a lot of people in that price range. Absolutely. Let's give them something. I know it it's not their dream home. It's not their last home. I mean, maybe it is, but

I Or it could be their last home. Well, I was saying what I'm saying is that a good size? I think that's a great size. That's my parents' house. That's a great size. But if you're gonna shrink the frontage 10 feet, then it makes it tough to get it in there with a with a two car garage. You would be looking at closer to

1,100 square feet, and that's gonna shrink it. Do we have to have the garage? Is the garage required? We need to have the garage. We need to have a garage so that they're not storing things outside. They have a really they don't even have room in front to park with that. What if you traded the garage

for a stipulation that there was no on street parking? Well, that had to park in your driveway. Saying between the front of their garage and the street, you can't if I pull into their driveway,

I'm hanging out into the street. Right. But we can adjust the front setback to force enough room so you can fit a car.

I thought we already did that. I thought it was, like, 18 or 20 feet, and that was because that was the length of a car. We do we do have that in So that it's this draft. It's not only off the street. It's off the sidewalk. It's like Yeah. So the front setback, we've set this at 20 feet away from the property line. So after the sidewalk,

then you get to your property line 20 feet to your house. So there's should be plenty of room to park your standard sized vehicles and not be overlapping the sidewalk.

Even it needs to have some type of a garage because, otherwise, what you'll have is you'll have a carport that people are storing things in their carport.

And that just we can't Yeah. But, also, it could be a a single car garage. That's right. It can be a it needs to have some type of a garage. It doesn't have to be a two car by any means. I don't think we've ever required a garage. No. We haven't. I mean, I think the market does. Well, CCNR as well, but as a city, I don't believe we have. So there was a provision that the planning commission wanted to add it to the mixed use zone to have a requirement for a garage plan. The city council took that out because they felt like the market would dictate that Mhmm. And the city should not be dictating that. So at one point, it was put forward in the mixed use zone. City council took that out.

So there there's also some things that are in here. What about the maximum lot coverage with a with a lot that small? And if we have a 1,400 I I'm not sure how many square feet one point point one acres is. What is it about? Four 4,600. Mhmm. What's what's an acre? Forty six? Forty three five sixty.

So you'd be 4,300.

So 4,300

and then Yeah. It's a one crack.

And then you put a a 1,400 square foot house on it, plus the garage, which is, what, 20 by 20, another 400 square feet. Mhmm. So you're looking at 1,800 square feet.

In Michigan, Utah. To us. Are we I'm staying in Utah. New to Texas.

We have a 45% maximum lot coverage Traffic. Requirement. Does that make sense? Or do we need to make that larger? Or do we need to make the lots the minimum lot size a little bit bigger than point one or point one one.

Does that are you I'm checking what you're saying. I'm just thinking that it's funny because we actually talked about this a lot this morning, and what we came to the conclusion of is it's really fun to throw numbers down on a piece of paper and think about it. But until you actually draw out a potential site plan, it's not really gonna make sense if this is a viable option or not. So, yeah, I don't know. On paper, it sounds good, but the residential transition zone always sounded good on paper. Yes. You know? And you could see how well it's worked out so far. Isn't it only for a small chunk? Isn't there only a few lots that this this transition zone will even apply to? Well, that's a question asks for it. That's a question more for the general plan to address because in our future land use map, we say that a medium density zone such as the transition zone could be used in more than just the Wolfpack Way area. We show it wrapping all the way around the northern end of the city.

Is it yellow?

I think it's the yellow one. Okay. So in theory, this could be used in can be used quite several different places. And if the city decides in our next general plan update to change that again, then it could be an option that goes even to another place. The other question I had was

Where is it? Page two. General design number two. Building shall be designed to relate to a grade to grade conditions with minimum amount of grading and exposed foundation walls. I don't know what the ground what the where the the water table is in some of these places, especially in the lower part by by Wolfpack Way. So could someone put a basement in down there?

Based on the Geotech reports we've seen from the mixed use projects going in, most of those projects have had to build up at least two, sometimes three feet or more just to load their stormwater ponds work, and nobody's planning basements because the water table's so high.

So So you couldn't even like, my parents live close to Salt Lake, the Salt Lake Great Salt Lake. The Great Salt Lake in Syracuse. They do have a basement. However, their main floor is up.

So, like, a split level? Five or six steps.

No. It's not a split level. You just have to go up six steps to get to the main floor, and then the basement is

down from there. Only it's only a couple feet before below right now. Gonna see

four or five feet five feet of basement of foundation wall for the basement.

Mhmm.

And then they're going to push dirt up against it so that you don't see as much, but you have to go up steps. Is that something that is possible in these areas or not even that with the the amount of groundwater?

I mean, talking about the areas specifically where Wolfpack Way is currently built, you're gonna have a hard time with that. Stretching further north towards where Wolfpack Way will be built, you probably could make it work because the water table from what we've seen is not generally as high. Like, the Bringer's Village tests that they did showed that the water table is not nearly as high as some of the projects done further south.

What about those houses that are closer to 200 West?

Like, if you Like, right in here. Yeah. If you look at Like, here's a little fact way. Here's 200 West. We're looking I mean Right. Like, right here those are well yeah. Like, these guys bought this big property because it's all wetlands. They could only build on this. Our site, the rest of it is all wetlands. I'll put it this way. Our city engineer

recommended that we adopt a new road standard for every road West Of 200 West to say that add extra stabilization factors because of the groundwater.

K. Alright. But two story homes are fine Mhmm. According to this. K.

So what do you wanna do with it?

Okay. Can I speak? Chair. Sorry, Mike. Please. Again, I would just encourage you to drive by. I think these are nice homes and nice neighborhoods. People take care of them. They're probably closer together than your house and my house, but I love them. I think that it's cozy. I think it's friendly. You know, people that live on these huge lots sometimes come in here and say, I have my four neighbors, and I do not want 20 neighbors. And I'm like, really? You want you only want four friends? You don't want 20 friends? That's what it feels like sometimes. I think if they moved into and met those people, they would love all of them too. When these 55 and older first came were proposed, the whole city came out, or at least that neighborhood came out and said, no. This it's a horrible idea. It's a terrible idea. But I would I would argue as you drive around now, most people that live by them love them. Like, they're completely content having them as neighbors. And maybe part of it is they're 55 and older. I'm not sure. I do know that grassy space doesn't get used down in the legends. And even when some kids have played on them, the older people are like, hey. What are you doing there? Like, my grandma lives here. You know? And so I would say, you know, we're talking about open space. I assume sidewalks count as open space. I would say, you know, do we maybe require eight foot sidewalks instead of our you know, I mean, I really appreciate the sidewalk across the street from my house that goes up to Lane's Park. It's a three foot sidewalk, maybe. Four. Sorry. Four. Guess I put on weight. Still smaller. But, you know, if we said, like, six or eight foot sidewalks, like, it just everywhere that I've seen these big sidewalks and pathways go in, people are using them. They're coming out. People are walking, and that's what we want. We want a more active lifestyle. And if we don't have necessarily community gathering spaces like a library, we do we are running into each other on these paths, whether you're on a bike or a scooter or pushing a stroller. So I like the I like wider sidewalks, and I don't know that we require those. I don't know. I like that idea, but I also don't like to be really specific and say it has to be just this way. I was questioning. I thought I saw, like, you can't have all one surface on the front of your house, one kind of building material. So someone couldn't have an all brick home or an all stucco home or an all siding home. You've gotta mix it. Yeah. That this ordinance was written

right after we finished the mixed use zones. We took a lot of the design standards. It's the same rule as mixed use. So you're looking at this one that says no single material can be allowed to exceed 50% of the street facing facades.

Yes. And I'm saying we're trying to make these affordable. These are starter homes. These aren't,

like Right. And this was originally written as a mixed thing. And so, typically, with, like, a townhome, if you're gonna have a multistory shared wall, massive building, you wouldn't want uniform look. But if they're all gonna be single family, it's probably not as big of a deal.

So I I would take that out. Three c. I can't remember. What's the very next thing?

Exterior building materials has been finished.

On three c. Oh, like corrugated galvanized metal? That's kind of a trendy thing that people are decorating with right now. We're saying you can't use that corrugated metal? That's one of those trendy things people build with. Like, who are we to say? But there still needs to be a standard,

and it doesn't wear well. Watch your whole Doesn't look Your whole nice long term. I get that it's trendy and that it can look nice if it's done well. Like, stucco can look nice if it's done well. Yeah. Sometimes it doesn't. And, unfortunately, the corrugated rested type look metal

doesn't look it doesn't Don't dis on stucco. You got a Southern Utah guy here and an Arizona lady over there. We we live with stucco.

Stucco. I think stucco is lovely.

I also think there are state statutes now or development that prevent us from seeing oh, sorry. There are state statutes in place that prevent us from telling people, you know, you can only use this or you may not use that. You're right. For single family developments, there are those rules.

So I've got to specified it for townhomes, but we can't do it for if we if these are single family, we may not be Yeah. I'll have these any way. We'll have to research that and K. Get back to you. I did like the centrally located on that open space because of the one that we had last meeting where they were putting the open space out at the highway for people to walk a half mile to before they could have their little picnic. And I did look up the difference between Xeriscape and Xeriscape because I've I thought they were everybody was just saying it wrong when they said Xeriscape. It kinda ticked me off because it's Xeriscape, X e r I. It's Xeriscape, meaning the local plants that don't need as much water. But there's also xeriscape. So apparently but some of the site you know, some of the explanations were like, xeriscape, no plan. Xeriscape, there's a plan. But really, the difference is xeriscape with the x has the native plants, and Xeriscape is just rock

or yeah. Yeah. We ended up specifying in the mixed use zone Xeriscape as, like, bare quote, unquote, bare earth landscaping. So if it was just, like, dirt or just rocks, that was not allowed in the mixed use zone. I think we copied and pasted that in here as potential language too. And I just realized that I duplicated the open space. Yeah. One of them said 13%. One said 20%. Yeah. No. I was I it's a rough draft. I was trying to find the open space section, but I was scrolling too fast. So I left a note for myself

to combine them into one. Okay. That was my other that was my last question was the anyway, get out, drive by all our 55 and older. I mean, they're all pretty similar. But

Yeah. I'll know that this ordinance isn't even close to as pressing as the other two we've talked about tonight. So if the commission wants to take more time to drive around to the senior communities in town, look at them, think about it, we could try to put together some sort of I don't wanna make any promises because I don't know how we would do it, but we could try to put together some kind of mock site plan for a few lots to show how this would look as compared to the existing 55 plus communities. But if you want if the commission wants to take some time to think about this and really work with it, we have time. And but we don't even know if anyone will jump on it.

Right. It may be as bad as the not bad, but just like the planned professional where no one asks for it anyway. I mean, that's how you're gonna know if it's a good zone or not if no one's asking for it.

Uniform similar house plans to be built in a row They'll do it. There's somebody out there who's gonna do it. You know? Most of the developers that have issues with our mixed use zone is they don't wanna do the mix. They build one kind of housing. And I know there are several developers in the state, one in particular that's doing a project that looks really similar to this, who's looking for a spot in Cache Valley to do a similar project. If we had a zone like this, I guarantee you they'd be knocking on our door saying, where can I build it? So it's out there. But, again, there's no rush. We're not in a hurry to make this a priority. This was just something that has been an issue for a while. We know the transition zone was a problem, so this is us trying to make it better.

I can tell you that I have, I guess, selfish reasons for wanting this type of zone other than I think it would be good for the city and good for the state because this is exactly what governor Cox wants us to look at, additional starter homes. And that is, I've got kids who can't afford homes, and they would be able to afford this. And at least they'd have a starting place. And, you know, once you get in, you're you're set, but you gotta get in

first. Let them play first.

Yeah. I mean, it's like trying to find a job. If you have a job, you can find a job, a better job. But if you don't have a job, it's really hard to find a job sometimes. So I think that we just need to offer this as a an option and an not an option, an opportunity for our kids, other people's kids in the city who who keep saying they want their kids to live close by to have that op option or that opportunity to to be able to do that. Not all of our kids have parents who have lived in the valley for ages and have, you know, had forefathers who bought 300 acres, and they're spending spotting it up between the family members now. You know, that's not an option. Or selling selling it to developers and making boatloads of money so that they can then give it to their kids to build a build a place. You know?

So yeah.

And if too and if too many requests come in, you don't grant you don't grant future ones. You know? Grant one, see what it looks like. If you don't like it, don't grant the others. You know? We don't have to grant 10 of these right away.

Kinda do. Like, do do they come in. I know I went through this. Yeah. Yeah. We did that for the whole the whole the mixed use. In in a way. But But this is I think this is a much better option than I mean, we gotta have the the the regular sized streets. We gotta have the the sidewalks and the curbs and just everything else that's required, but just smaller lots, smaller houses so that our kids have a place to move. Get in the game. So I think we're all for this. Yeah. I think I don't know. What do you how do you have anything else, Steve?

I had a question. Have all of the the land for your kids already bought and set aside? They can figure it out themselves like I did. Yeah. Here you go. I just wanted to, like, kinda back not backtrack. That's I wanna go back. So I'll clarify, is the intent of this residential zone to provide affordable housing, or is it to simply appease existing homeowners that don't like the new stuff coming in? I'm saying that in a really just direct point. I don't because I think I think I mean, either way, ultimately, I think we just gotta decide on what's the right size and then let developers figure out what to do from there and let the market dictate how it progresses.

I don't know why it couldn't be both. I'm a say it could be. I'm just It's a great point because we had this conversation this morning. The purpose and objectives of the zone as it sits was very centralized around diverse housing and the transition. But now that we're we're seem to be focusing more on affordability. We had a discussion as staff. Do we need to change the purpose statement to say something like, we're stood in the transition of housing, but also in providing housing for position from renting to homeownership, like dual purpose transition zone. And so a rewrite of the purpose and objectives is probably a good idea if we're gonna be changing that. Is that within That's great point. Ordinance or within the general plan or both? It would be within the ordinance. The general plan, that's a little bit of a bigger undertaking if we're gonna modify that, but definitely within the purpose of the ordinance. Because, yeah, if you read right now, it's all about multifamily units and mix of housing and everything. But if we're just providing one housing type, probably should change the purpose exactly what you're describing. What what is this for? What are we trying to accomplish?

And I I think I threw in there as as part of the goals when I talked about it, when I sent you the email of how I had that epiphany, mind blizzard, whatever it was. The sixty, thirty, 10% as far as single family, multifamily, commercial, I don't think we need to designate that. If they wanna put multifamily homes in that, that maybe, I would say, no no more than 30%, no more than 10% commercial and along Wolfpack Way. I don't, you know, I don't even know. Well and and that might be an opportunity to to to do

as much of a headache as this could be a density buy up buy up option where if they're gonna reserve a certain percentage of units specifically for a an tax income bracket of people, then you would allow them to have a percentage of townhomes. It's kind of a nightmare to do administratively and figure that out. But if it's a big enough goal for the city and we could use that to help with our standing with the state and a moderate income housing plan, that might actually work for us on multiple levels.

Yes. That could be a good option. I I wouldn't mind if it was a 100% single family homes.

Which is what we've got right now. Yeah. So it it's really So Again Yeah. We don't need to solve all the world's problems tonight. This is very rough draft. We're gonna keep working on it, keep refining it. I highly recommend commissioner Lee's recommendation to go out and visit these sites and really think about it. In the meantime, we'll keep working on it and see if we can put together some sort of mock site something.

Yeah. We have a lot of these in Hyde Park. We've got five or seven of these, 55 and older, but other cities have them too. So, yeah, not just Hyde Park. There's some you like in other cities. But, yeah, I think DJ Nel that I think the planning commission two years ago definitely, you know, they had two members on there who lived right there. So theirs really was a personal issue, like transition help me and my neighbors so I can go face everybody at church. And now I feel like this commission is more like, no. What if we help grand our grand our kids, grandkids, whoever, get their first home, get in the game? So I do think it's changed. That's a great point, TJ.

And so if you have draft language you wanna propose, send us an email.

Get in the game. But I but I do but I do think it's both of those. I don't think it's one or the other. I think it's both. I think it's both. Because, I mean, we have this high density townhome zone that's out of control, and this gives a chance to get

a nicer neighborhood in between there. Given given my background being in the military and never being close stationed close to family, you know what that's like. I and and then when someone said, hey. Well, where are you gonna move when you get out of the military? I said, well, wherever the jobs are. I just wherever I get a job. I never thought about having to be close to my family. And then I came here, and I I heard someone on the news, an older lady, a grandmother, who probably would say something about children, the the life expectancy of children on certain streets. But she said, well, it's our right to have our family close by. And I looked at my wife, and I said, right. What the heck is she talking about? But we can provide them the privilege and the opportunity. K? Because, certainly, everybody else has priced our kids out of the market with even third acre lots and larger with smaller homes. I mean, I've got a 1,700 square foot home on the top, and it's a small house in Hyde Park except for some of the core the core houses. So let's let's we know it's not a right. I I chuckled when she said that. Actually, I was kinda mad. Right? What are you talking about? You know what rights are. But we can give them the opportunity, and I think that's a and at the same time, not upset those around those areas that are need to be developed into building something that is too extreme for their their likes. That's a nice way of saying not Well, I think they are too extreme for all of their likes.

Just the neighbors there. So

I I think yeah. Hyde Park has a reputation. It is it is the Beverly Hills of Cache Valley. Nobody can afford to live in Hyde Park that just moves in the valley. They gotta move somewhere else. And as much as that is really cool saying, hey. I live in Hyde Park. It's also yeah. We don't have any place for our kids to go. Like, they can't move with us. So or we can't move into something smaller and stay in Hyde Park. Right. Just being able to Yeah. Just to transition life life transition into a different a smaller home, downsize. So and then we can give all the extra money to our kids, right, so they can build their house. I'm sorry. I've I've ranted

in DJ school. On your however, therefore, because whatever your statement, I would just include starter homes instead of getting the game.

Any other discussion on this? No? No. Orcus? Do you have anything else for us?

Visionary Homes is proposing a development agreement, including the Farley property and all the other properties surrounding the cove and the adjacent subdivision. They wanna have a workshop with the planning commission and the city council to review their plan that they have thus far. Is there a night that absolutely would not work for the planning commissioners to have a work session with Visionary Homes?

Is this going to be, like, a work session like we had before that took a lot of time and then nothing came from it?

No. As far as I know, they're on they're, like, under contract with the properties, and they're

getting their application ready to submit. Are they trying to get homes or townhomes?

Townhomes. Point out. Well, what's that? It what's it sound right now? Mixed use? Mixed use. Mixed use. And Mixed use. Mixed use and transition zone. And this is visionary? Visionary. Townhomes.

It's townhomes.

K. Colette, do you have anything for us?

No. I'm good. Thank you. You want me to motion? K. So what any any night that absolutely would not work. Are you talking about Wednesdays in general? Well, usually, we try to do work sessions on Wednesdays right before public meetings just to make it easier for people's schedules. But Oh, it can't go on forever if they do it at six on one of our nights. They were gonna give you thirty minutes before the meeting starts? Usually, what what we do is we say, we'll start the workshop at six. Public meeting starts at seven. Ready? Go. That's usually what we do. Yeah. We need So we're not there for three hours listening to them say how wonderful their plans are. I don't know how long they're willing to wait. You do have five weeks in July, but you probably don't wanna give them that much time anyway to wait for that fifth week in July. Oh, and we've had some city council members that can't make it to the fifth week, so we're not gonna do a work session on that fifth week. I can't. I'm not I'm completely out of reach on the second.

Yeah. I don't think the second's a good option anyway. So 09/16, or '23?

Is next week next Wednesday? Will that work for people? July 25.

June 25. Sorry. I meant that. You have a community walk input meeting. Tuesday. On okay. I put that on the wrong day then. Are you sure that's what our website says?

I sure hope that's what our website says. Yeah. Go by go by Dave's.

Are we still broadcasting?

Yeah. We'll be live streaming the whole time we're recording.

June 25.

It does say twenty fifth. It's not the twenty fifth. It's on twenty fourth. Alright. Help me remind Susan. What month are you trying to reach? You're trying to reach the young crowd? When is it Tuesday? Tuesday, the twenty fourth. K. That's when it really is. Would you like to have a meeting at 06:00

on the twenty fifth?

I'm just asking if that works for people.

Can I make a suggestion that they could send something out in advance so we know what we're gonna be seeing?

So would that give them enough time to send us something in advance so we could go If they send something out in advance, it escapes into the ether, and they want this all to be very

Who's presenting it?

Jeff Jackson or Bryce. Others. Bryce Gooden

and Mike Hawthorne.

K. They're not very long winded. No. Bryce is very They're pretty cutthroat. Point.

Just do it during one of the meetings and say you got ten minutes. Give us your elevators elevator spiel. Yeah. Do we can't they just do it during one of the meetings? Well, they're looking for

feedback from both the planning commission and city council. And That's true. They think that a work session would be the best opportunity to get honest feedback and opinions because in a public meeting, it's still the very sterile, like, you know, only the whoever the body is gets to talk to the applicant with maybe some input from the staff. They want more of the work session feel.

I am available just about any Wednesday except starting July 21 through the August 2. So

You're gone? So he'd have to do the ninth or the Mike would have to do the '16. He could do first through the August. So he can't yeah. Mike can't do the twenty third or July 30.

I can do it So could we pencil in next Wednesday at 6PM for a workshop with Visionary, and then I'll make sure that the mayor and the city council are good with it. And we will send an email out to confirm

if that's the dates and time it's gonna be. Is that alright? Yeah. I think that works. I I think they've come to our meetings in planning commission before planning commission meetings the last couple times, so we can go to their before their meeting.

K.

Just If you can make it, you can make it. If you can't, you can't. We'll send out invitations. Everyone who comes is welcome.

They're gonna be, like, gluten free cookies or something? What's the They have some gluten free cookies?

Absolutely. If you bring them. Sorry. If you don't tell me you don't give input, you don't get to

complain about it when they submit their application and it's not what you wanted. I'd be careful. I hate that because they're gonna get some interesting comments back, Marcus.

I and I want you to give them all of your comments, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because they matter. Yes. They do. Alright.

Really? No. Kayla, welcome. Do you have anything that you'd like to like us to think about before the next meeting?

I would like you to think about the purpose of what you're doing. Just like we were talking about the purpose of that transition zone, you have the opportunity to do some really fantastic things. So think about the purpose.

K. Thank you. Alright. And Colette has

junior mints for us when we're done. I think they're all gone now. The last two spilled out. Alright.

There's nothing left. I make a motion. We adjourn. Alright. Take it. Alright. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of adjournment Aye. Say aye.

Aye. Aye.

There was a pause. There was a pause there.