Hyde Park Planning Commission 5/21/2025

It comes to Brian Fox, I'm the dang. And and you're you're always within a couple minutes of being that dang. I'm probably a couple minutes within being more into that dang, Paulie.

Two. We're we're dangerous. Maybe? But yes. Thanks, Fred. Now Ned is gonna be So great. In and out, if he's gonna be in at all. K.

He's here for now. He'll be in and out.

Have you started the fluids? Oh, yeah. Okay. He won't be in for long.

Alright. Well, just so everybody knows, tonight is the first night we're trying our new stream to YouTube rather than having Zoom open to the public. So we are live streaming as of right now, and we will start recording the meeting in about three seconds.

So it's a whole new system that you're learning. K.

Learning. Learn.

And while this doesn't come to our screen, so yeah. Here. Welcome, everyone. Are we ready? Are we recording? You got that? Are we recording? Is that close enough? Please make sure you yeah. That's right, Holly. Keep your microphones close. Speak clearly. Welcome everyone to the 05/21/2025 planning commission meeting here in Hyde Park City. We will have an opening prayer or thought in the Pledge of Allegiance led by. Okay. Alright. Yeah. That's fine.

Heavenly father, we thank you for the opportunity we have to meet together and discuss city matters. We pray that we can be guided. Please bless that we can always remember how blessed we are to be in this area and help us that we can do the best we can to help improve it and maintain it. We thank you for all our blessings in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Right.

I would like to thank you to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Alright. Thank you. Is Melinda in also? She's on Zoom. Alright. Welcome both to Ned and Melinda wherever you might be. First thing is approval of the minutes from May 7. Does anyone have any comments or corrections they'd like to make to the minutes as they were published in the in the file?

No. I didn't see anything.

I can't hear you. You don't have a microphone.

Melinda made a few changes that I noted. So they they were just minor changes, grammatical and those kinds of things.

Okay.

This is Ned. I didn't I didn't see anything that needed to be changed.

Melinda, when did you make those changes? Oh, that's right.

John. Okay. Now can you hear me?

Yes.

K. Sorry. I submitted those to her yesterday, I think.

Okay. So if you read it since yesterday, you wouldn't have noticed the difference. I didn't notice the difference. Alright then. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as they are currently in the in box. A second. Okay. And we have a second from Sher Nielsen. Any other comments? Alright. All those in favor of approving the minutes as they are currently, in in the file inbox, say aye.

Aye. Aye. Any

any opposed, say nay. Alright. I think we're good. And now back to the agenda. We have a couple of public hearings. And before we get started, just wanted to remind everyone of the new rules that have been put in place by the city council. Is that correct? And the important thing is that during the time that anyone may be presenting something from from the community, we let them talk. We don't answer questions. We don't ask especially we don't ask questions, and let them get their full three minutes in. And then in the discussion phase is when we can ask questions. So alright. We've got some we've got the minimum improvement requirements. So I'll first ask Marcus to go over that briefly.

Great. Thank you. There are two sections of our minimum improvement requirements ordinance being discussed tonight. Chapter 13 of our municipal code deals with subdivisions, and this section specifically talks about the improvements that are required when a subdivision comes in. So all the things that the developer has to install before they can get a building permit. The two sections we're discussing are opening up for this public hearings. First, the sidewalk section. We've had an issue in the city that's been around for a long time where developers will put sidewalks on the subdivision, but then put it back to the homeowner or home buyer to build that sidewalk. And what inevitably happens is one or two lots don't sell, and so there's a gap in the sidewalk. But then over time, you know, ten years later, somebody buys a lot and builds the house, and surprise, they also have to put in the sidewalk. So the modification to this ordinance is the language up here as you can read that says that it is the developer's responsibility to put in the sidewalk. We're just putting it into the code explicitly stating the developer needs to put it in. So that's the first section. The second section has to do with curb and gutter requirements. Specifically, we're removing all references to the flat curb being allowed. It's not that this the city's against this. The development review committee just felt that the city as a whole needs to have a better, more comprehensive approach to this. There's many sections of towns where we have steep slopes where flat curves would be a real problem. You'd have a issue with stormwater and washing out of yards. And so until the city can get maybe, like, a geographical area or other specific, requirements associated with flat curves, it's recommended that we just remove this from the code completely.

But there is a there is the provision unless other unless approved otherwise approved. So in other words so developers can come in and say, you know, we we really don't want the the full curb. We want a flat curb.

At that point, the city can decide whether or not it wants to to approve that. Right. The flat curb system isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is there's a lot of variation within the city of how the terrain is and how the the ground is able to deal with stormwater. So there are specific instances where we would actually want to encourage the flat curbs, but they're they are specific. It's not something we want broad sweeping open to the development community. K. So those are the two sections for open for public hearing tonight.

K. Alright. Any other anything else? That alright. Then we will let me get back to the agenda. We will open the public hearing portion of this meeting for Hyde Park Municipal Code thirteen dot sixty dot zero one zero, minimum improvement requirements, the edits to that code. If anyone would like to make comments to that, please come to the front, state your name, and that you are a citizen of Hyde Park, that you live in Hyde Park. Is that the requirement?

If you are a resident or not. Okay. Resident or not.

And we'll go from there. And I don't see anybody moving in the in the congregation there. So we're gonna close that public hearing to HPMC 13Dot60Dot010, minimum improvement requirement edits, and open it up to we're good. Well, let's just jump right to that. The next, public hearing stormwater penalties. HPMC 15Dot50Dot080. Marcus,

you're on. Yes. Thank you. So the state legislature passed a new law this past session that made it so that the city can no longer hold up a building permit if that building permit does not have a SWIP plan. Now for those who may be unfamiliar with SWIP, stands for the stormwater protection and something plan. Basically, providing the the contractors who come and build the house aren't gonna be tracking mud and mess out into the roads and causing a mess on our stormwater system. But now the state made it so that the city can't force them to submit that plan before we give them the permit. However, our city attorney recommends that we add this language to our stormwater ordinance, which allows the city to go up whenever there's a lot under construction. If they do not have a posted SWIP plan, we can impose a fine upon that construction site. Basically, we can't force them to submit their plan. But if they're working without a plan after the permit's been issued, we can send our code enforcement officer up there or public works or stormwater person to go and say, hey. You have to have a SWIP permit and either issue a fine or a warning or however we're gonna do that. So, really, that has to be in place before work begins. Correct. K. So the permit can be issued,

and then they just have have to have it before they start work. Yep.

K. And that's just the single section right here, 15 dot 50 dot zero eight zero b. And this whole document is just the ordinance resolution that will be signed when the council adopts the final version. K.

So I I did see that not only did you make it a fine, you made it a a misdemeanor.

Alright. This was written up by our city attorney, and he was just following our code enforcement process that's already in place.

So there's a code there's the same thing as the rest of the code enforcement

requirements? Yeah. So we have two options in our city code enforcement. One is that it could be a criminal penalty as a misdemeanor, or two, we could have it be an administrative fine, which means that it's just our code enforcement officer writes them a letter. And if they're still working without a permit after a week, we can issue a fine directly from the city without giving them a ticket.

K.

So it gives us the option to do both. Any questions?

No? Ned or Melinda, do you have any questions? Sorry. I forgot to ask last

time. I don't have any questions.

I'm sure Ned's busy. K. Alright then. Yeah. The only thing I can say yeah. So we just wanna make sure that they have some sort of stormwater retention plan. K. So public And then this goes this resolution approving the changes goes to city council their next meeting.

Right. Both the last ordinance and this one will go before the city council for final group. K.

Alright. Well, let's I'm sorry. I started to jump ahead of myself. Let's open up the public hearing. I didn't do that yet, did I? K. Open up the public hearing for the edits to Hyde Park Municipal Code 15 Dot50Dot080 stormwater penalties. Is there a minimum time I have to wait? No. No? I mean, I I do have to provide an opportunity, but

no? I can't. You can just ask if anyone's there to speak. There's

There's there's a few people here, so it yeah. They all kinda gave me the the knot the The shake. The shake. They had back and forth. Nope. K. So we'll close the public hearing. The edit to HP MC15Dot50DashDot80080. And then jump to considering the, minimum improvement requirements, meaning those changes to the curbs and the Sidewalks. Sidewalks. The only thing I can say is even the regular curbs aren't enough in some areas. I was I was telling you, we have regular curbs on 200 South in the upper part above East of 700. And when there's a a storm where a lot of water comes down at one time, it will as soon as it hits the driveway, it will spread out and go into the parkway and take everybody's rocks that they paid lots of money for even though you can't get a shovel in the dirt here without hitting rocks, and we'll roll them down the street or into your neighbor's yard. And I spent a couple hours one day shoveling rocks out of the intersection of 207 Hundred. So with flat sidewalks, there's no way that that water would even go where it's supposed to go. So I'm I'm all for this. I'm in favor of and I'm in favor of making sure the the developers do the sidewalks too instead of leaving that for the the home buyer, unless they are the developer. I concur. Okay. That's all. Yeah. A man of many words. I agree. Man of many words. It's well, it's a pretty straightforward amendment. So and it makes sense. Okay.

I I got a couple of comments. Can you hear me?

Yep.

No. No. Ned, speak louder. Okay.

Into your microphone. We close the public hearing. Okay.

On the time on the sidewalk thing, I'm I'm all for that. I wondered if you maybe all wanna put something in there about a timeline on how soon the developer has to pay for it because sometimes they go out of business, or maybe you wanna make them leave a bond or something like that. I don't know. But if you wanna put that in that revision to the ordinance, they gotta do it, like, within a year of putting the roads in or whatever. I don't know.

Yeah. So there's a couple of things there. First of all, yeah, we already have a section later in chapter 13 that talks about bond requirements and how all public improvements need to be bonded for. This provision makes the sidewalk essentially public improvement. It already was. But the other difficult part is the state also passed a fancy new law that says that the city cannot force a developer to put in a sidewalk until they're about to give certificate of occupancy to the homeowner. So it makes it we can't really impose a deadline anymore, but we can hold a bond, and we already have the link placed in the code to do that. Okay. That sounds good.

And then on the other part where you said where where Michael asked about less unless improve unless unless approved, and then you said, unless recommended by the city, maybe would you rather have that wording in there so that they didn't always try to come in and get it approved? But just when we say you really ought to have black curb or whatever, then they could do that. I don't know. Maybe that's nitpicky. That was my two comments. So

Okay. Thank you. Melinda, do you have anything?

I don't. I'm for both of those.

K. Yeah. The only thing I can think is that I don't believe we have a map or anything that's already been designated by DRC saying or the city engineer saying this is where we would like to have flat curves. So until that's developed, there's nothing that we could really do. Right. And the DRC, when we discussed this at our last meeting,

the whole city staff is willing to put in that work, but we just need some direction from the city council and the planning commission on how you want us to tackle it. Because we can go strictly off of engineering recommendations, but there's also the aesthetic aspect and, you know, historic part of town where that's already exists. So there's some more conversation that needs to go into it.

Sorry. Okay. So is that something that we want to pass forward already, or is that something that still means further

No. For now, the recommendation from the DRC is to just eliminate it from the code until we have something like that, and then we can bring it back.

So do we wanna remove that unless otherwise? I don't think we wanna

You can take that provision out if you want and just say everybody's doing high back curve period. I think that's fine.

K. Have it in there. If we don't want flat curves, why do we have it in there?

We have it in lots of places in the code. I just put it in there because it's a common theme that we have. That there's room for for people to propose other things, but we can just as easily remove that.

Or what if someone comes in on one of those few empty lots in the old part of town where it matches everybody else on the block to have flat curb?

Right. If someone were to take an empty lot, say, in the core, then they would say, well, why do I need to put a curb here? Because there are no curbs anywhere else along this road. Mhmm. So I think we well, one was gonna point there. I think we ought to leave it in there Yeah. Unless otherwise approved.

No worries. She's right. I think that's it.

Ned, does that sound okay?

I'm fine with that.

K. Alright. Any other comments or concerns with the edits to the minimum improvement requirement code?

Not from Melinda.

What was that, Melinda?

Not from Melinda.

Oh, I thought you were going to make a motion.

Approve as stated.

Approve.

Whatever. Let's not get lazy now. All of them. Both of them. Can we approve both of them at the same time? Approve the proposed changes. Yeah. Sorry. So

Out. Then we need to still discuss the stormwater penalties.

Can we make can we approve both at one time? Right. But we can just Or We haven't No. I'm just asking if it's possible. I mean Let's just make them It's easier to not Okay. I make a motion to approve 13.60.01. Is that the right number? As it's been As it's been amended. Okay.

Alright. We have a motion to approve HPMC 13Dot60Dot010 as it has been edited and amended?

I'll second it.

And Ned has seconded it. Thank you, Ned. Any further comments or concerns? Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the edits as they currently are to HPMC thirteen point six zero point zero one zero minuteimum improvement requirements, say aye. Aye. And, say nay. Okay. Oh, did you did we recommend approval on that one?

Said approve, but we understood what you meant. Recommend.

Yeah. That's a that's a recommendation.

Yep. We'll make sure that everyone's aware of that. We don't approve that. I was gonna say something, so I didn't wanna I didn't wanna stop the momentum.

Yeah. Okay. Stormwater penalties. That's the you don't have to have a a stormwater plan in place when you get the building permit approved, but you have to have it before you start working. Correct. Or at least before the code enforcement guy shows up.

Yeah. Specifically, it's just establishing the penalty for not doing so. Right.

Yep.

That's all it is. And that is in reaction to the state changes that they made where we can't deny a building permit if they don't have that plan.

Yeah. And I'll complain a little bit here. It the state made this change, which they thought was pretty easy, but, really, this ends up being a huge headache for us because we we're already under strict scrutiny for the stormwater standards, and we get in a lot of trouble with stuff like this if there's contractors just tracking mud and dumping it into our system. So it was a little bit rude in our opinion. The state legislature just was like, oh, yeah. SWIP's not important. Yeah. But then the state's stormwater agency is still cracking the whip whenever we're even a little bit noncompliant. So there's there's a deal.

Any comments? Any other comments? Ned, Linda?

I don't have anything.

I make a motion we approve this one too.

Okay. We have a motion from Ned to approve HPMC 15DotDot50Dot080 as it's written. Recommend approval. Recommend approval. Thank you. Recommend. Yes. Is that right? Yeah. Is that right? Okay.

Yeah. I'll second that.

Melinda seconded. Oh, you beat me, Melinda. You got it. Sorry.

Miss your

second in that. K. So we have a motion and a second to approve the edits to that code. Any any other comments or concerns? Alright. All those in favor of recommending approval. I did that right. Recommending approval to, the edits of HPMC 15Dot50Dot080 stormwater penalties, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. Sounds like it's unanimous. Alright. We have another thing to consider. This does not require a public hearing, but we will be voting on this. Is that correct? We are making a recommendation to account. Recommendation? Yep. This is the Bringhurst Village phase phasing plan. This is the the development that we approved that is in the north, of the city right along Main Street on the East Side of Main Street.

Or

Would you like Marcus, would you please give us a quick lowdown?

Yes. So I'm sure everybody's familiar with the Bringer's Village development by now, but in case you've forgotten, Bringer's Village project is

Ned and Melinda, can you see that?

I mean, it's far away, but that's alright.

I got it on my other computer. I can see it.

You can find it in Box later. Yeah. It's in it's in it is in Box. It is a drawing of the development with the phasing plan that they're proposing the developers are proposing.

Okay.

So this development constitutes I forget the exact numbers, but it's approximately 200 townhomes, about 50 apartment units, and a mixture of with a mixture of apartments and commercial on bottom and then some commercial units against the highway. The development was not approved with phases, and so the developer is now coming back to request that the city allow them to split it up into the proposed phases here. There's only one the engineers did a review on this because part of the submission package was the plan set for phases one and two, which you can see up there. So the develop the engineer city engineer reviewed it. Then a couple comments on the length of the turnarounds and some other minor things to the infrastructure that I won't bring up here. The only comment that they brought up is that our mixed use zoning does have a provision that says, unless otherwise approved by the land use authority during development plan approval, the proposed project is if it's going to be construction phases, each phase shall be all commercial or may include a mix of commercial and residential uses. No phase shall be solely residential unless 50% of the required commercial area has been built in previous phases. So I do have to know that the phasing plan as presented right now when it was presented to the staff, and I basically told the applicant, I can't say yes to this because it doesn't meet the code. So what they're doing is presenting this to the city, looking for that as otherwise approved permission. And the developer is here if or representative from the developer's here if there are any questions for them.

K. Alright. Would you like to just come up and tell us

what we're looking at? Explain what we're looking at. I'd love to. Great to see you all again. David, I don't think you and I have had the pleasure of meeting, but very familiar. I've been here many times. So thank you for having me. As Marcus mentioned, part of that line of code is part of a larger agreement that we're still in the works on right now. The majority of the terms for this agreement are regarding the right of way for Wolfpack Way. So as you're very familiar, the far eastern edge of our property has 49 and a half feet that will be dedicated to the city as a donation towards Wolfpack Way. In part, with those negotiations, what we are agreeing to is that we will be providing the utilities that come all the way up Wolfpack Way. As you see, these green and blue lines, of course, these are not drawn to scale. This is just to highlight a little bit more of what you would be seeing if you zoomed in really close as an engineer on these drawings. But the green indicates the sewer line that runs somewhere to farther to the left side of 4100. We'll be connecting to that, bringing it all the way to the east and then running it north all the way through to the north end of our property line, allowing for connections all along the way on the east and west sides of it and even to the north for it to continue again for future developments. Same thing for the waterline there. That waterline starts at that 4,100 right there at the bottom of it. There is water that already runs all along 4100, and we'll be taking it all the way north. Now this is a a large benefit that we'll be offering to the city simply because, a, we need it in order to start our development, but, b, the city needs it before they can do the roadway for Wolfpack Way. And I'm not sure if you're familiar or not, but the way that the city's grant funds go when it comes from the county is that they are restricted from accessing or using those for utilities. So that has to come from a different set of funding. So this is a a larger part of the agreement that we've been working on. Now part of this is, as Marcus mentioned, giving us the flexibility to be able to have some different phasing opportunities here. And the reason for that is because as we look at, Bringhurst Village as a whole and, Marcus, if you don't mind actually just going back to that great colorful image. Thank you. As we look at Bringhurst Village as a a whole, the call it, eastern two thirds of it there with the townhomes, we have one partner for all of those. So that one partner has all of the different phases that we've been working on with them, and that's what we're presenting right now starting with phases one and two. We have different partners in the works now for commercial phase one, which realistically is mixed use, not just commercial, as those have apartments on top of the commercial and then commercial phase two. The challenge is that neither of those folks can really proceed forward with financing before any of the residential has begun. There's two parts to that. One, banks just don't care to talk about bringing in commercial into a place where there isn't residential already. But two, even worse is the cost of the utilities and bringing everything else to that area. Now as we had mentioned from our very early discussions, we knew that that was gonna be an issue with bringing utilities. Right? But I had always assured you that we were gonna be the ones to solve that problem, and that's what we're doing right now is solving it by bringing those utilities first for residential phases one and two and then being able to connect onto those with each of the commercial phases. So this won't be the last time you see me is what I'm saying. Here over the next month or two, you're gonna see me come back and present some new phase options as far as, which one comes next. Ideally, we're going to see probably half of the mixed use phase come in, and that will be probably phased out as a phase one, phase two, between the top three and the bottom three, and then the commercial being phased out most likely as a, one to two phase project next as well. So these are not linear, or chronological, but rather just looking at phases one and two first. Now I understand, of course, that this is a large development, a large project as we talked about before. This takes many years to accomplish, and so it can be a lot to wrap your heads around tonight. But I hope that I can answer any of your questions about it as we go along. I've got more that I can share, but I'd love to pause there and see first what questions or thoughts we have so far.

So have you gotten the two developers together to to work out a deal to to fix fix the issue by doing commercial at the same time the other developers doing the residential?

Yeah. So what we're suggesting is that the the different developers that we're working on for those commercial phases, they can't pencil out anything when it it requires them to bring all of the utilities all the way up to those commercial areas. So those utilities have to be brought in for the residential first, and then they can hook on to them.

Is there is there a u are there utilities on the West Side on Main Street? No.

So they go across the highway quite a far distance away. It's actually gonna cost far more for them to try to bring them underneath the highway working with Utah. The only utility that is on the Eastern Side Of Main Street is a waterline. We'll actually be bringing that one north as well. So that is an eight inch water line that we'll be bringing up along the edge of our neighbor's parcel on the south end, bring that all the way up to the north end of our parcel. That will create what's called a water loop. So that loop is done for phases one and two. Something I should have mentioned as well, standard pipe sizes are eight inches. We have agreed to do 10 inch pipes for the eastern ones that are going along Wolfpack Way as that will provide you greater opportunity in the future for future developments without having to upsize those pipes.

Well, I think don't we need at least that size for that many units? 10 inch? Yeah. Typically, we have eight.

Yeah. But we have eight, but we don't have anything like this. Right. Well, really, it goes back to whatever the results of the water model is. So when we did our water master plan two years ago now, Sunrise Engineering developed a model that basically we put in the number of units that are being proposed with the existing infrastructure, and it spits out some numbers to say this is what your flows are gonna be. If it's too low and it can't meet the fire requirements, then they have to either create more looping or upsize the lines. In this case, they had to do both because this is in a very

undoubted area. In any way even though

So I wanna be clear. The loop was the requirement. The eight inch line is also the requirement. We have agreed to do the 10 inch line. So the 10 inch line is an increase, and the cost to us is gonna be far less than it would be for you. So we're adding that as our benefit to you. What I'm explaining, though, is that the loop is what was required because just to run even if we just did it even a 10 inch line, running it just up north wasn't going to be enough water pressure to go that far. So we are required to loop it, which means we're bringing both water lines up and then looping all the way around the two. And that would have just been an eight inch line, but that far eastern side, both the sewer and the water will be 10 inch.

Does them making the tenant go into the 10 inch line require us to change any other lines Nope. As a city?

Marcus, is that accurate? Were they only required to do a loop with an eight inch line, or were they required to do a loop and a 10 inch line? I was confused on you guys are both talking at the same time. No. The problem is

when this got approved, I remember it being a requirement to do both, but they've there's been a second iteration of the utility plan, so that might have been changed. I am not sure.

Okay. But at one point, it was that they needed to do a 10 inch line and a When it was initially approved and we were still working out the red lines, as far as I can remember, yes. Because that's what I thought. I remember too. But the second iteration, they might have solved that. Okay. By adding it. I'm not sure. Got it. K.

Sorry. I just you guys were talking at the same. I couldn't hear you. It's okay. I I have all the details. I mean, I can show you the records. I just don't wanna get hung up on something nominal. What I'm suggesting to you is just of additional benefits of what we're bringing, things that are part of this right away agreement that are still under discussion. So the terms of it have all been negotiated. The numbers are what we're still working out right now. And so I'm just I'm excited to be able to present that to you because or as soon as that goes to be for the city council publicly, ideally as soon as next week because that's part of the phasing plan and part of what we're presenting to you.

K. So the k. Thank you very much. I'm I'm not sure. Does anyone else have any questions? I

I do. Yeah. Go ahead, Ned. No. You go ahead. Okay. One of mine is, like, when phase one goes in, is that does open space go in with every phase? Will there be some grassy area? It just looks like that park area play area in the middle goes in pretty late.

Yeah. Great question. The way that it's designed is that open space is laid out and distributed throughout the entire phasing. What we were able to accomplish, though, is phases one and two because of our access points. So we were only granted access for a general access point at the Northeastern or excuse me, Northwestern corner from u dot. So to accomplish any other phase after phase two, the only one that's most feasible is phase one. Beyond that, though, there will be further discussion for all of the other phases from three through 13 to determine what's most feasible next. Whether one of those comes in with more open space versus another also, I I apologize. I'm not sure whose name that was on the phone. Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Lee. Excuse me. I don't think we've had the chance to meet. There are some parks, some smaller parks, but ones in between phases three and four as well as phase seven and six. So they are spread out throughout the entire place. Theoretically too, at whatever point the city starts to work on Wolfpack Way, we are in charge of doing the improvements. So there's grand grass and, landscaped area there as well. So it's hard to say. I mean, there's definitely some grassy areas, but, it's gonna take some time for us to be able to offer everything that was part of this project.

No. I understand that. Okay. A couple other questions, and these may be for our city people as as well. I know, like, if I bought two lots and I wanna build my house in the middle, I have to combine those lots before I can get a building permit. Do we have that same requirement in commercial areas, Marcus?

No. It's only in residential.

Okay. So not problematic that these are still two separate lots.

K. Well, there how how is this going to be? Is this a rental or a for purchase? For sale. Yep. K. So each one of those homes Is platinum. Is their own separate lot. Correct. Oh, okay. Okay. To join a single home on two lots, you would still have to go to the county and change that to combine into one.

Yeah. No. I'm just saying, like yeah. When I build my house in the middle, these are townhomes or what like, they'll be individually owned. I understand.

Okay. If you have it up, if you're able, you could zoom in real deep. I mean, again, as a reminder, this is a large scale. These are 206 townhomes, so it makes more sense if if we're able to really zoom in. But what we're looking at here is a whopping 15 and a half acres. So sometimes it can be challenging to see each of these blocks of townhomes might look like one single family home. But when we zoom in closer, you can see the, the individual layouts between each of them. Yeah. Right. I've seen that, and I saw that, like, there's three different sizes. And, Yeah. I understand that part.

Okay. My other sorry. I'm fairly new to this. Okay. The I just thought, like, everybody has to have two ways of egress, two in and out. And but do we really just have the highway? We don't have Wolfpack Way, or this won't go this won't be occupied until Wolfpack Way is in? Or

talk to me about that. So to catch up to speed here, the code requirement as far as fire code goes is anytime you go over a 100 units, you have to have more than two, ingress egress points of access for safety.

At least at least two. Not lower than two.

You have to have at least two. Two or more. Is that is that not what I said? You said more than two. Oh, excuse me. Yes. At least two points of access, so two or more. Okay. And so what we have here is one approved from UDOT at the Northwestern Corner. The reason why u dot wouldn't approve a secondary access point for general use is because if you look just south of our parcel at the Southwestern Corner, there's gonna be a future intersection there at what there would be in the future, calling 4200. Actually, I guess, technically, it is 4200 on the Western Side Of Maine. And so, because of that, we have a lot of different options that we've built into our plan. The first one, though, is the option that if the, amount of units within our development reaches a 100, prior to us going over a 100, we will be putting in what is called a fire truck apparatus road, which is up that southwestern corner. It's hard to see if you're able to zoom in in that purple area, though. You can see where there's a fire truck apparatus for safety. That is a gated access that is only for fire trucks. Aside from that, we have on our first drive aisle that is about a third of the way in from the west going to the east. There's a north and south access point there. There's also another set of north and south access points right above phase one and then right between phases twelve and thirteen. Another set of of eastern access points over on Wolfpack Way, and so an additional total of six extra access points that will be available depending on who develops first. So I'm not worried about access eventually. I'm just worried about access

when it's only phase one and something happens to block off that one entrance.

So I I don't know what to say. They'll be down at the fire code. This has been No. That's fine. If fire department has it, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. It's all approved by fire code because it's less than a 100 units. But once we reach a 100 units, we are required to have a secondary access point or the point or the fire truck apparatus at that point. Okay. But they have many access points in there before that. This is, as I mentioned, to catch you up, we anticipate even the first couple phases here being the ones that take the most work with utilities, probably taking about a year at least to get those finished. And then for the entire development, I would assume even the residential is gonna be minimum three to five years out. That's probably optimistic. And then we're probably looking anywhere from four to seven years for the entire project total to be finalized. So this is a this is gonna take quite some time. And over that time, it'll be pretty easy for us to be able to connect with our neighbors to the South and the North as they're starting their plans. I know that, our neighbor to the South has already gotten his rezoned or at least applied. Rezoned. Yep. Thank you. And then, we've been in discussion about Wolfpack Way. The grants for the funding for engineering just came through, so we're excited to see that starting to get built out here in the future. So, I I think that what we've done is ensure that we are able to meet the code and ensure that there will be safety met, but in the future, it'll be a nonissue.

Right. Right. I agree. Okay. Talk to me just a little bit. Walk me through, like, the North South connectivity where it has to be, like, at least, you know, our blocks can't be more than 350 feet, which that looks like, you know, you divide it into about thirds. Is just one of those a road and the other one a or two of those a road? Is the middle one, like, a pedestrian walkway?

You're talking about the accesses on Wolfpack Way?

No. On the north and south borders, like because we want the connectivity connectivity between developments.

Yeah. Those have a different code requirement, though, when it comes to the separation of distance. I believe it's a 150 feet. I can talk about it if you want. Sure. Go ahead. So, Melinda, just for your information, there was a

we had an overruling factor here, which is the spacing required by our master plan, where 4,200 is very close here on the South End that has a spacing restriction. And so we tried to have them match that spacing restriction rather than accommodating pedestrians where that's a requirement of master plan. So that's more of the reason why that's not as closely paid attention to here. It's because we were more concerned with the future, entrances coming out on 242, and then these guys wanted to have their access as be as straight as possible going north. So that's why it shook out that way.

Okay. Yeah. It looks like that one kinda dead ends in the middle, you know, in that phase 6, that one road from the bottom.

Used to be further over kinda, like, right in the middle where it says Phase 13. That's where it used to be. But, again, it was that spacing requirement, so we had them push it over. So now it kinda dead ends and then can because that's a high access road, I'm sure. Okay. So, yeah, just talk to me back there. Like, in between phase one and two, tell me, is that, like,

a sidewalk for pedestrians?

Both.

A roadway with sidewalks on both sides. Cars can drive between phases one and two?

No. Those are Sorry. Not my apologies. Not between phase one, two. Sorry. Right above the phase one, right next to that p. Thank you, Marcus. Right? Right. I see that that's a road. Tell me what it what it's like between one and two.

So that's the sidewalk pedestrian walkway.

And will that be open to whatever's to the north of it that comes in?

Potentially, we are open to offering easements for that for sidewalks. So far, we've have easements already offered for the access points for the roadways. The sidewalks, I I don't see any reason why they wouldn't because we're putting them right up against the property lines. But rather what you're also seeing right in between those units a and c are two parking stalls. So we found a a very efficient way to be able to utilize those spaces so that people can have additional visitors parking stalls.

Oh, I see.

Different rows of townhomes. So you'll see that actually throughout the whole development.

Okay. And, Linda? Yeah. I would that there's gonna be a fence along the northern side. That was my next question.

Okay. Fence up north and south?

Zone. So it's not a requirement. I mean, if the developers wanted to put a fence up, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. It is somewhat of residential. So, I mean, it's Right now confused. But Right now, the stuff to the north the property to the north. Wow. It's gonna be commercial. Right? It's unincorporated county. The owner is currently applying to be an into the city, but right now, that's not even within our city boundary.

K.

And he goes right back to about doing? Yeah. He wants to do something similar, but it's only when it's up against a strictly residential zone. Like, if it was an r two or an r four, then it's required to put a fence up. Okay. But where it would be bordering mixed use in the future, it's not a requirement that the fence be installed.

But they can if they want to. Yeah. I I think it goes right back to Melinda's question, though. We're still waiting to see what our neighbors end up developing. We're as you know, we move much faster than most folks here. And and so we we moved forward with this and tried to work with both of them on these plans. They've they've been very amicable, but just haven't made their final decisions. And so, you know, if they wanted to utilize those sidewalks to some extent, maybe they wanted to put another flip flop version of townhomes along those roads. I I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to and why we would put a fence there to stop them and make it a more contiguous or continuous appearance of townhomes that that would continue in a way that looks assimilated. In any case yeah. I'll leave that until our neighbors north and south come up with some projects.

I just have one last question and might be kinda silly. I'm looking at your street names. You know, you've got Yellowstone Way and Borg Boulevard, Roadster Road. Tell me about the Cuddles Corner.

The family name, actually, surprisingly enough. It's actually the uncle of one of our, business partners, and he was one of the largest inspirations for us all getting into real estate.

Okay. I figured it had to be some person's name. Otherwise, it sounded, I don't know, a little on the silly side. But I can't see it become a a teenager's favorite spot. I'm not sure. But I know that we're not necessarily going for that. I have a 15 year old. I don't want him on Cuddles Corner. Well, fortunately, not on a hill with a great view. We'll put it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. That's all my that's all my questions.

Please don't hesitate at any time if you wanna reach out to me, though, and set up an individual call to dig into anything else, and we're always happy to chat through these things further. Okay. Alright. Thanks, David.

Okay.

Ned, did you have any questions? I did.

Okay. So I was a little confused on one thing. The I think you said something about the phases weren't gonna happen linearly. Does that mean mean the phase phasing is a sequence. Right? I mean, I'm a little confused on what you what you're when you said that. I I can get I understand that maybe you start selling and building in phase three before phase two is completely done or whatever like that. But I I mean, this is the order you're gonna do them in. Right? These one through 13 on the on the residential side.

Thank Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that. Actually, I should have spoken more on that. What I meant to say is that what you're effectively approving tonight is just phases one and two. And phases one and two are happening in coordination. And, frankly, I don't know why we're splitting the two of them out. I think only because the building permits are gonna be pulled for phase one and then building permits for phase two even though all of the infrastructure for both of them will be put in as is obvious based on the roadways. Beyond that, though, what I went meant to say is that they're not linear in the sense that phases three through 13 are what we currently perceive is gonna make the most sense, but things change. And so we might come back and say, actually, we're gonna flop phases four and five, and we're gonna flop phases six and seven, and then we'll request approval on those. Additionally, I didn't want anybody to think that we're just doing phases one through 13 and then going to commercial. It's absolutely not what's happening. It's just that the commercial phase one, which is mixed use, commercial phase two, will be coming back to outline exactly when those are happening. And so, so thank you for giving me the chance to talk about that because, yeah, timelines as far as what's happening next is gonna be a work in progress.

So you don't have any idea of when any of your noncommercial

phases are getting ready to start? Well, I got a lot of ideas.

Yeah. K. Any firm ideas?

Nothing's signed. So that's why I can't publicly disclose it. But K. You will see me very soon.

Do you have an idea of when the commercial will start?

Again, I I can give you my boss my best optimism and sell you on something here, but, you know, that's not my method. So I always give you what we believe is accurate, what is most correct and true. So do I believe that it's gonna come in before mixed use? No. But do I believe it's gonna come in before even halfway through the townhomes? Absolutely. Yes. I should have clarified. Commercial phase one, so mixed use. Yes. I believe that I'm gonna be coming back next month talking about that. Okay.

Alright. Any other comments, Ned, Melinda?

Not from me.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Alright. Now discussion between members of the commission. I know what the code says. And one of the I guess one of the main reasons why we even decided on a mixed use was so that we can get commercial in. The uncertainty of when that might be started is of a concern to me. And saying and and if if the developers are only relying on this residential development to feed customers into the commercial part, I mean, you're right there next to Smithfield. Well, you're in between the Smithfield and Hyde Park. So if the if the if the endeavor has interest to anyone, they'll go there because it's close. And I'm not sure if we should go against what we have in the code, which could you read could you pull that up again, Marcus?

Yeah. You want me to read it? Please. It says, unless otherwise approved by the land use authority during development plan approval, if the proposed project is to be constructed in phases, each phase shall be all commercial or may include a mix of commercial and residential uses. No phase shall be solely residential unless 50% of the required commercial area has been built in previous phases.

Maybe for a little extra education, what's the mindset behind that ordinance or that

So to refresh everyone's memory, a cons when the city did our general plan, we hired a consultant. Part of the contract was to help us update our codes and write new codes. This provision was proposed by the consultant. They had worked for Layton City and a few other cities previously. They said this was a problem where a developer would come in, build all the residential units, and then skip town or come back and say, well, we can't find anyone to fill the commercial units, so can we change this to be just more residential? And so they said that putting this provision in the code would give the city more ability to force that commercial. You know, if you don't necessarily have a tenant lined up, at least build a space for them when they're ready to come in. Now we understand that development is hesitant to do that. It's a very big risk for them to take on.

What's the benefit of the city if they do take on the risk, build all the units, and then they sit empty for five years?

Exactly. That's

the the problem. The city doesn't really gain Just having them there doesn't guarantee they're gonna get filled. There's tons of empty space in this in the county. You're not wrong.

So, anyway, that's the concern. The it was a recommendation from a consultant. The city accepted it. But where we haven't had any mixed use finished yet, there's one project underway under construction. It's hard for us to really understand if this is going to be a help to the city or a hindrance.

So I agree. There's only 26 units in phase one and two. I don't see that as being a huge draw for commercial to all of a sudden have like, we're able to do commercial because we have 26 roofs. Yeah.

Yeah.

And Did did Aria split? Remind me. Was Aria faced?

Aria wasn't. It was one. No. And and so two points of clarification. It's not just about having humans there. It's about getting the utilities there. The cost of bringing those utilities up there, we're we're talking about nearly a million dollars. Yeah. You can't put that all on one project that's doing some mixed use commercial on a few apartments. You can't put that all on five commercial buildings, and neither one of them would ever come to town. So so this isn't just about humans coming in. This is about project feasibility. If we can't get a residential person who's doing all of our townhomes to bring those utilities first, then everybody else just says, well, yeah, commercial doesn't have utilities. It costs us way too much to bring them up. We can't do this project. We can't pencil. And then to your other question about the ARIA. So we had discussed whether or not it was gonna be phased. And as of right now, no. To my knowledge too, we we've already had all the polling permits pulled for all of the units as they're already platted for. So commercial's coming in right now. That's what I thought. I I might just add I mean, you guys have talked to a lot of mixed use developers over the years. We're the first ones to actually move on something. Yeah. We're still involved in the ARIA. We're still involved in all of this. And I I would like to think that's earned us some political capital here to be able to tell you that what we say we do is what we actually do.

So let me let me ask you a quick question too. How many units do you need to build, or how many phases do you need to have approved to pay for the utility improvements that get you to where they need to be so you can start building commercial? Just these two.

Just one and two. Just one and two because one and two is going to be able to bring all the utilities, all the water, all the sewer, and then the water up along the highway. Then we now can say, okay. We've got water and sewer all along one and two. Now to bring it for the mixed use or to bring it for the commercial is almost nothing. And so for them to be able to to look at what's their increased costs as they're trying to build up performance here, It it's it's a greener at that point. So as far as that that's what I meant by timelines too. You know? Yeah. Maybe phases three and four are gonna wanna start underway just because maybe the the market changes and that guy's getting moving faster with us. But, realistically, once phases one and two are started and the utilities are brought up, mixed use and commercial come right along with it.

K. You hope. Because it's a scale it's a scalability.

It's our plan.

Can I ask a question?

First contact. Right. No plaintiff survives first contact.

So could we with the I don't approval of this, could we state something that,

question. Could we could we say we'll approve commercial phase one as your overall project phase three. We'll give you approval on one, two, and three, and you can't go beyond that until you're going on that.

So this is a little

One given one, Ned?

One, two, three. Phase one and two sits as they are, as he has them, but call commercial phase one, project phase three, and we'll approve those three phases before you get any more approved. That work?

So this is a little deceiving is the wrong word because nobody's trying to do anything shady. But if if we keep scrolling down here, you'll see that what they're proposing is an overall phasing plan. But, really, what's being proposed is just the construction drawings for phase one and two, which means they gotta come back for every other phase that comes down the line to get the new construction drawings approved. And if they're proposing a different plat where they're gonna plat the individual units differently, we're gonna have to have that reviewed and approved too. So they're gonna come back every time they're ready to build another phase. They're coming back with a new set of plans to get it approved. And the city could really easily say, hey. We approved phase one and two. We'll approve phase three and four, but we're not approving another phase of commercial. The next one better or we've Right. The next phase better be commercial, or else we're gonna say no because you're we're violating the code or we you know? So there's Set the expectation. This isn't the last time you'll see this. Tentatively,

you're saying we're okay with the phasing plan, but they still gotta come back every time when they're ready to actually start building one of these phases. Right. And the phasing plan will change. It's just the nature of it. It will change. Yeah. It's not going to look exactly. I'd be a fool if I said this. There's no things that are in the stone. Like I mentioned, commercial phase one, I anticipate we're gonna come back with two phases for that as well, the top three, the bottom three. Sure. Again, though, I'm guessing. So I need to to come back with firm knowledge on that, and that's then when you can vote on that one. But, yeah, thank you, Marcus. Really, we're just talking about phases one and two today, and you'll see me a lot more if you aren't sick of me yet.

Yeah. And I guess just looking for overall comments on, we'll call it the master facing plan because that's a very popular city government term. So there you go. Really, it's just approving the construction drawings for phases one and two with giving a thumbs up to the overall layout of the rest of the phases. But he's they gotta come back for every single one of them.

I like the drive. It's really not that. You know?

The hour and a half each way. Yeah. A two, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Nobody's counting.

And are we approving or recommending approval? Recommend. Right. It's a recommendation.

K. I don't have a problem with just one and two with Sure. The understanding the mixed use needs to come pretty quickly after. I understand scalability and that you need to bring up utilities. I understand all that. Yep. So I guess I don't have an issue with one and two with setting that expectation.

Yeah. I think I'd just like to any motion would be just dealing with phase one and two. Absolutely. Not with anything else. Not does not

mean a recommendation of the overall phasing plan because we don't have an overall phasing plan. Agreed. Then that's all we're asking for tonight. We were just trying to give you as much information as we have today. But yes. So So in that case, a a motion might be

approve the phasing plan for phases one and two, and that's it. K. Recommended.

Yeah. Recommend. K. Is quick. Thank you, everyone. K. Thank you. Alright. Well

Any motion? Yeah. I'll make a motion. Okay. Do you recommend approval of phase one and two of the phase plan?

Okay. Any other conditions? I

no. I don't think so. I think they're gonna have to come back for, and I think we'll have that we'll have that ability to deny or request additional information before they can proceed with any additional phases. Yeah. I I would like to add something to that. K.

So I would just like to add that the this recommendation of approval shouldn't be deemed as a recommendation of the entire plan, and that we realize that there is that need to bring the utilities improvements up, and that's required. And those are the things that are gonna fund it. So we have to get those in. So

Can I can I add one thing to what you said, Michael? Because I agree with that. Can we maybe have the drawing package that is included in this annotated to say only phase one and two. These are other things or not?

It does already at which page is it? Page three of 14 shows only the phases that are

being recommended at this time. And and page one, Claire, verifies it also. It just says bring her village, I have four phase one and two. The the picture in the upper left hand corner also shows

the site map with only those phases one and two as highlighted. Everything else

is Okay. Shaded. I think he was just giving us the overall map just to give us an idea of what the phasing could look like just as a general idea, but we're here only for phase one and two.

K. Alright. So we have a motion and I second. An amendment to the motion. Do we did I is what I considered what I said it Would he be a second? Were you amending the motion? Uh-huh. Yeah. Because I kinda wanted that realized. I wanted the city council to know that that's what we were thinking if if we are all in agreement on that. K. So the motion was phase one was or part one was To recommend. Recommend approval of phase one and phase two with the amendment that this doesn't constitute recommendation of the entire phasing plan. But we realize and that we realize that we're not yeah. I'm gonna really go off here. We realize we're not following code exactly, but we have to do that to get the utilities up there at this time. It it shouldn't be considered a regular thing that we're gonna do. Does that make sense, everyone? So that's the that's the motion. In its entirety. In its entirety. And we have a second. Right? Did you say Sure. Did you second it Uh-huh. With the amendment? Uh-huh. Okay. So Holly has seconded. So all those in favor of recommending

I'm in in its entirety in the next thirty minutes.

All those in favor of recommending approval of allowing phase one and phase two to proceed, realizing that the entire phasing plan is not being recommended this time because there is no phasing plan to recommend, and that it's not indicative of how we're going to be enforcing the code in the future. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Now did anyone actually really understand what I said? Because I'm confused. I mean, we've all got it. Yeah. We Let's I'm I'm really curious as to recommend it. I think we have half of city council here anyways. No. I don't. So people okay. I'm really con I'm really kinda curious.

Yeah. April.

April. We got it. Polet's

got the notes. We're we got it. Really curious to see what AI will say when we when we get the notes back from AI.

We we had to dump the AI. It was not smart enough. Doing it? Okay.

Yeah.

Somebody was over explaining. I'm sorry. K. Just

Alright. We have some other discussion items. Yep. K. Edit to the mountain. Thank you very much if you wanna take off and and head home while it's still late. Okay. This office is the back, isn't it? Doesn't he rent room? Yeah. Don't you cut, like, a sleeper sofa like this? That's what he's done. I got a light little fridge. He rents rents a mini apartment. Have have you registered that with the with the city to make sure we're getting taxed on that?

Make sure we're paying taxes and things. Thanks, Sessence.

He really should just rent an apartment at this point. It's the mountain wreck. Yeah. Well, for there was a while, he was here quite a bit. Yeah. He was. And he drives that huge truck. Yeah. It's nice. So okay, mountain rec zone. Marcus, talk to us about the edit to the mark the mountain Rec zone. Okay. So this was discussed the last meeting.

I I think it was commissioner Hansen who brought up that he had some major concerns with the man on Rexone, and the commission kind of agreed that they wanted to revisit it, just look at it before we get any submissions. I asked everybody to send me any language you were specifically concerned about. Nobody sent me anything, so I have nothing to formally present. Okay.

That's okay. I sent you lots of other stuff. You did, and I appreciate that. K. So is there anything in particular that we feel needs to be changed? I'm not familiar enough with the mountain rec zone, to be honest. I can give a just overview of what the mountain rec zone is, if that would be helpful. Before you do that, mister

Ned, do you wanna this kind of mister

As opposed to mister Ed?

Sorry. That's mister Ed. Sorry. I'm used to with my kids. Do you wanna be here in person since this is something you wanted to discuss, or do you feel comfortable doing it via Zoom? Because if we haven't gotten any applications up, Marcus, up until now, we would be good to push this two weeks unless you think they're forthright.

Oh, they're forthright. The the drafts are in my inbox. I'm reviewing them now. Had, like, a 100 pages. Have you gone through each pay a 100 gone through a 120. K. The the rest of the 400 page packet is imminent. So within the next two weeks? Yeah. Whenever the developer gets it to me. Now Okay. Have they actually submitted, or are they only Nope. So they've provided it to me for a screening where I'm going through it with them, just trying to figure out what the city actually needs for the submission and what we're okay with saving for later. So we're working through that. And as soon as we've gone through all those pages, they will be putting in a formal application.

So that could be within the next two weeks? I'd say a month. Oh, a month. Okay. Yeah. So, commissioner Hansen, did you wanna be here in person, or are you comfortable doing it via Zoom?

I'm okay. Well, it'd probably be better to be in person. I'll give you a couple of my thoughts, and I should've sent it out as an email. One of them was there was a ratio of Option two is open space land and on the whole development. And and I'm, you know, I'm looking up here at the the foothills above us and, you know, it there's different kinds of land up there. There's there's there's relatively flat land and there's relatively steep land. And, you know, if we just give them a percentage of their land that they have to put in as open space and parks and stuff like that, who's to say that doesn't just end up being Sidehill that's really crappy compared to the flatter land, if you if you know what I'm saying. So I'm I'm just wondering if we weren't being specific enough there. And then I like, I think I expressed verbally before is I'm a little worried about the traffic issue. And I and and a lot of it, you know, it does require a traffic plan or a traffic analysis, but it doesn't tell them what to look for in their analysis. So is it is it gonna be enough for us, or are we specific enough to make sure we don't end up with traffic jams? Those were the two things in my mind that I thought we wanted to maybe think about.

Yeah. I think that's fair. We definitely with the hillsides the way they are, we don't want the open space to just be the cliff rock side. I mean, it needs to be usable by the community.

So you wanna start by talking about open space?

Well, I'm wondering, do we wanna

I don't know. Do we wanna talk about this tonight, or are we just postponing this for Well, I'm I'm okay with waiting if unless you don't wanna talk about it tonight.

Because I can't see the screen very well, so it's we can do it next time.

Let's just get a quick overview of what the mountain rec

zone is for. Yeah. Let me give, like, a five minute history of this. Okay. So like I said, with the mountain recs or with the mixed use zone, when we redid the general plan, we hired a consultant. The consultant helped write a lot of new codes. This is one of them that came out of the process. A lot of the bones of this this ordinance came as a recommendation from a developer. We kinda took it with a grain of salt and redid it to suit what we thought would be better. Some of the highlights are the mountain wrecked zone requires a very complicated master development agreement before like, before we can even grant the rezone, we have to get this huge submission from them with traffic plans, utility plans, g geological studies, soil studies, which is what I'm going through right now. Just basically proving that the developer can do what they're trying to do because this zone is meant for huge parcels of land, you know, 80 acres or greater. And so once they submit that to the city, the city reviews it, and then they submit for a rezone. So during that rezone process, there's a big negotiation where the city has a lot of leeway. If you read this code, there's a lot of opportunity for us to say, yes. We do want you to do it this way. No. We don't want this to happen. There are some base requirements for the the zoning itself. For permitted land use types, we allow single family neighborhoods. There's not really a specification on how much of that is. There's high restrictions on everything. We allow, higher density, like a townhome or an apartment, but there's still a height limit on it. It can't be taller than a regular single family residence. We require that there be significant amount of natural open space, we call it, ground that we want to be left open and in its natural state. And then there's a very big requirement on active, excuse me, active recreation areas, so, like, trails and, amenities people can get out of their house and use. Now with the development standard section, I mean, you can read it here. There's a density calculation. It's a gross density calculation, three units per acre. The idea is those three units per acre can be split up between the different housing types so that you will have clusters of housing put together with maybe, like, a town center area with a low mixed use portion, apartments going out to townhomes going out to single family. But by squishing all those units into one spot, you can leave a gap of open space, spacing out these developments so you're not just looking at a sea of houses up on the hillside. The requirement for open space, oh, it's in here somewhere. I don't remember exactly how much it is. I wanna say it's, like, 15 to 20%.

20%. Go up a little bit. C five.

C five. Yep. 20% of the total project acreage

Actually, that's 20% of the required

Oh, yeah. So c four. 35% of the total acreage has to be dedicated as natural open space. And then of that natural open space, 20% has to be dedicated for the purpose of active recreational facilities. Those numbers were decided after a long conversation with one of the developers who's looking at making about 600 acres worth of property up there. This is what they they proposed very low numbers initially, and the city pushed them way beyond that. And then this was the middle point where the developer was putting their plans together and saying, we could make this happen. So that number is very much based on one developer's opinion, not necessarily data. I'll just leave that to think about. Yeah. That's about it. I've seen I mean, there's design standards here. Talk about how we want the development to propose design standards for everything, not just the buildings, but if they wanna propose different standards for street types and cross sections, if they wanna have flat curbs or if they wanna have no curbs, we let the developer propose all of that with the application. So this isn't just another subdivision in Hyde Park. The zoning pretty much allows the developer to create their own unique

community. It's almost a planned community.

Yeah. It's a master planned community. That's the idea is you get somebody who can plan hundreds of acres at a time. It gets built over the course of however many decades. But it blends with the city, but it can also stand on its own as a its own unique housing product. So it's you know, if we wanna go in and mess with it, that's fine. But just keep in mind that before they even submit a subdivision plan, we have this whole process we gotta go through to negotiate the development agreement and say, we want your unit so look like this, and we don't want you to do a, you know, soccer complex up there because you're gonna be watering with too much water. So instead, you're gonna put in a basketball court indoor basketball court or something. You know, there's a negotiation that has happened with the developer.

Is this based off of any other code in Utah? Like, is it similar to anybody else's, like Park Cities or Heber Cities or Sand Hollows?

So the developer actually hired a consultant to help them write their first draft, and he was looking at Park City. He looked at Daybreak. He looked at some of these very popular unique communities, planned communities in the state to build his bones of it. And then our consultant who we had hired put their more realistic, approach of what they've seen work in other communities that they had worked for. Okay. So the bones of it were very much based on, like, a Park City or Daybreak type community. Because the part that I've read seems similar to, like, a Heber City

and Sand Hollow down in Utahns say it's stupid, but it's hurricane.

It's hurricane. It's hurricane. Okay. The original founders were British. Doesn't yeah. I don't know what you're talking about. Okay. Hurricane. The original founders of the town were British, so they called it hurricane. It just it felt similar to that.

Yeah. Okay. It's like meat, creak. Alright. So It's Greek. But

Again, if if Yep. Manaway. We'll have everyone as far as I know, we'll have everyone here at our next meeting, maybe. I'll be

Yep.

Oh, wait. Should be. I might be online. I should be able to be here. I think I'll be in Richfield, CIB Conference.

As of now, you haven't received any suggested edits. Right? Nope.

So if anybody has recommendations or changes you wanna propose, that's fine. I'm not trying to dissuade anybody from doing that, but I definitely recommend you read it and think about it in the context of this whole thing. The the city doesn't have this isn't like a regular zone. If somebody comes and gets rezone to mixed use, we're put in this box, and we have to give them whatever they want as long as it's in the bounds of the box. The mountain rec zone is is a rezone. We don't have to give them the mountain rec zone if we don't want to if they can't make it fit. So the whole thing's a negotiation. This is very different from a standard subdivision ordinance or development ordinance. What is all that land sown at right now? R 2? Most of it's owned as open space. Oh, there's some it's R 2.

K. Alright. So see one of the suggestions is we put together our changes that we might or concerns that we might have for the next meeting, specific, not general, but specific concerns so that we can actually recommend well, we still have to have an open

Yeah. Public hearing the next time. Well, that's why I'd say email them to me because then I can prepare a draft with all the track changes, and we can have something to present and get everything ready to schedule a public hearing.

K. Yeah. We'd have to have a public hearing before we could change recommend changes to anything. Yeah. And we're not gonna schedule a public hearing public hearing until I have we have changes to post. Right. So k.

Do I have to Yeah. It's just a discussion item, so there doesn't need to be a motion or anything. You can just move on to the next item. No motion. K. That's Yes. No

motion. You're getting tired?

Yeah. It's

Uh-huh.

It's late past almost my bedtime. Alright. The next discussion item was gravel pits, and I did see that someone had put in some some things into the gravel pit folder for ordinance examples. There was one piece of property that we were concerned about. It was up toward the, upper water tank in that direction. Mhmm. And there was concern that one of the new legislations that was passed by the state might force us to allow that to happen. I when I was at the APA Utah convention, they are meeting, whatever you wanna call it. I actually bumped into one of the lawyers from the property rights ombudsman's office. It's really hard to say for some reason for me. Ombudsman. And I just wrote her an email and asked her opinion, gave her as much detail as I could. And, basically, she said, you don't got a problem. Right. So and the and the reason is because it's the city that's creates that creates a critical infrastructure materials protection area. Granville pits fall under that critical infrastructure materials. Okay. So we would have to do that, or it would have to have been in operation before January 1 or something like that.

Yeah. So

well and I put in one. I did, like, an ordinance. It's under grapple pits. And then on the bottom, I have the legal basis of of saying why we can do it and the Utah codes.

So just as some background, the law that commissioner Mills is talking about was one where the gravel pit lobby got together and convinced the state legislature that gravel is a critical resource, and so they gave themselves a new protection. And so if a piece of ground is given that protection, it's almost like a zone where then they get their own set of rules and the city loses a lot of control of what we can tell them. Where Hyde Park doesn't have any existing gravel pits, we are not gonna have that issue. So nobody can, like, bypass our requirements and make one of these zones without the city say so. So we're safe from that. The only other problem we have is we need to have a city code update an a new city code or update to existing code to specify where we do or do not allow gravel pits specifically and what are the rules we have around them. So the state bypass is not gonna apply to us, but we do need to get some kind of ordinance. So Colette and Melissa put all those examples in box. Typically, with ordinances like this one, there's a lot of plug and play. Just take the sections that we feel like apply to us, review it with the city attorney, and make sure we're not violating any new state rules, and then we can get it approved. Did anybody have a chance to read through those examples and find pieces that you really like so we can start putting together a Hyde Park version, or do you just want us to take the Smithfield one and change the name to Hyde Park? Like

So I went through, and then I plugged them into AI with what I wanted to change. Uh-huh. And it plugged me out a whole ordinance. It's in the box. So that's the one you put in the box. I read that one earlier. I really like it. Thank you. I'm nervous about actually. I actually didn't use AI at all. I'm nervous about a couple provisions. Well, it's But I'm just gonna things that I'm like, that might be skirting the line a little bit. Uh-huh. But overall, I think it gives a good, like, you have to be this far apart or, like, you can't and I was okay. I wanted it to not state that you couldn't move land or gravel from one side of a parcel to another. Like, that's okay. It just can't be removed from the parcel because I don't want trucks going up and down the roads like gravel trucks because they're moving it to another one of their parcels that they own. They're not selling it. They're just moving it. I see what you mean. Because in some the Smithfield I think it was the Smithfield. It was for commercial use. Like, it said that specifically, so I don't wanna state that because the developer might have 15 projects, and we're just moving it. It's like,

you don't wanna do that either. I get what you're saying now. I thought you meant, like, they can mine all the gravel they want, but it can never leave the parcel. No. No. No. They just can't

they just can't take it off the parcel. I get to know. Yeah. So that's the ordinance that I popped in there is, like, kind of a Frankenstein over about 10 different ones that I looked at throughout the state Mhmm. Is what that one is.

The one thing that may not be possible, been where we put it, I guess, is g, access restrictions in her example.

Mhmm.

Just because I mean, we looked at that one piece property where the gentleman said he wanted to do it and thought, okay. How is he gonna get out now?

And there was no way for him to get out without going through Well, that's why I put it. And this is just a suggestion, but that's why I put it in there that, like, you can't take it on a residential road, bro.

Yeah. Bruh. I put that in the code. I don't know if it stopped because there's no other there are no other possibilities.

I put it AI told me it was legal. That's all it's all I'm saying.

Should I pick up you guys? It probably doesn't include the 17, whatever, or this other I'm nervous. That's the only other provision that I was nervous about. I I I know we can put restrictions on it. I don't know if we can Can we say no residential when that's, like, the entire rest of the way to get out of town. So Yeah. I'll run it by the city attorney. But Again, just an example. Or maybe there's a way we can say

they have to come up with a plan and follow it that that shifts the the burden of the trucks and the noise and the and the nuisance.

Yeah. I think we can do something based on our master transportation plan where we have all the roads in the city categorized by the amount of traffic that they are supposed to be able to handle. We probably can restrict it to the top tiers of those categories,

which will only put them down two or three roads. Well, the problem was that if we categorize it as, like, an it's going to be going straight down 200. 200 is on the chart. Two. Oh, a thousand. They're gonna go down a thousand then, which is right in the middle of a neighborhood because that's an arterial road. Because I had that thought too. Because there's quite a few arterial roads that are going through neighborhoods with lots of little feral kids. Right? So I say that with love.

They're called free range. Well Free range children. The same thing.

Okay. With free range children that are adorable and shouldn't get hit by a gravel truck. I just happen to know what roads are arterial because I happen to serve on another committee.

The lower part of 200 might be considered arterial, which is funny because that's think 7 I think was it 720,

Dave, or random citizen? 7. 7 is it 700 that's an arterial?

Random citizen.

We can't he can't be here in the city council. He can't be here. He's only gonna get more arterioles

than the street. Right.

Right. And we definitely don't want roads. I mean, I'm okay with 700 because it doesn't go through up my street. But but 160 remind me if 160 is considered arterial. I don't think it is.

Do you have that? Ned or Melinda, do you have any comments?

I do. I like the idea of being a conditional use permit, and then that's where you have them specify how they're going to mitigate those negative effects as much as possible. I like you know, but after they use it and I don't know if we do a time frame or how much they can get out. I mean, they have to rehabilitate it, you know, reclaim that land so that it's nice again. They don't leave this gaping hole or, you know, that dugout that just looks is an eyesore. I'm torn on, like, saying, no. Not in my town, because every one of us need need gravel to build our houses. Are we just gonna sit there and say, well, I already have my house, so I don't care if anyone else gets gravel for their house? Like, it feels a little

Yeah. What's your point? And was there a clarification for that point? I know.

Like, I got it there first. Too bad.

No. It's it's should be This one falls in the same category as, like, the sexually oriented businesses, the cell towers. It's we can't just say no, so we have to build a sandbox for them to play in somewhere.

Right. But, I mean, you don't know where like, gravel just naturally exists in some places. I really think it's on Skyview Hill. I thought Steve Parkinson, years ago, talked about, like, selling off his gravel, and then that would flatten out his hill, and he could actually put then put a subdivision in because it would be flat. And so to me, I'm like, I feel like he should be able to do that. If he has a if there's a naturally occurring source of gravel there, he should get to do that. I mean, what if you had gold under your bed? You know? I mean, just I don't know. I you know, like, I know Holly put in that 2,002 foot, and I kinda did like, went on to the parcel viewer and measured what 2,000 feet would be to have it be that far away from anything residential. That's a lot. That's a huge distance. And so I get you're probably trying to make it, like, sexually oriented, but it, you know, only fits in the fewest of places so they can't, in actual in actuality, do it. But I don't know. I'm torn.

Our sexually oriented business ordinance says all of the sexually oriented businesses shall be down on 400 West in the county addressing.

Oh, I thought we at least had it in the industrial zone.

Well and I'm not saying not in my backyard. Essentially, it is in my backyard, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's it's destructive. Mhmm. It's loud. It's noisy. There's a health and safety risk with dust in children following in because, again, we've got free range children, which is not a developer's problem. But it it is an eyesore. Skyview Hill is horrible Mhmm. And will forever be horrible. It changes the it changes the natural dimension of the mountain range.

Yeah. They've I going along with that, I don't I haven't really seen Skyview Hill, but I lived in Colorado Springs for a while. And on the West Side, just above the beautiful the beautiful park that they have there with the red rocks, they've got this yellow scar. And that's what it's called, the scar, where they decided to use that area to to get all the dirt and rocks for their roads, which I understand that's that's the basis for the the new ordinance that the that the state put in is because with all the roads we're putting in, every mile extra that you have to transport gravel puts a huge burden financially on the on the person doing the road, whether that's the city or the developer or the developer for the city or whoever. But, yeah, I get that. But, again, the safety issue, the nuisance, the dust, the noise. We have a no air brakes no engine brake allowed ordinance in our city, which half this half the trucks don't obey now anyway. And my my thought is if they can't stop without their engine breaks, then they're overloaded or their trucks are in really bad condition. And how many how many trucks had to go through the the intersection at Bear Lake before the before they started putting a whole lot of effort into to stopping that? How many people got hurt? And one kid that gets I'll say it. But the children will be killed. But I don't think that that's a crazy statement. No. It it's not too far off. I mean, you get a runaway truck. Where is it gonna stop? Well, is that At Maverick. All residential. It's gonna stop at Maverick or or worse, if it's coming down 200 South, it's gonna be in the junior high parking lot.

That's why we gotta make an ordinance so we can put restrictions on it. Right now, where the only thing we really have in the code is in our few in our land use table, we have a kind of reference to gravel pits saying they're not allowed in residential zones. But right now, that's our only teeth that we have. So we need to create something more comprehensive and exact. So whenever we get that application, we can say, well, you put your gravel put in, but we're gonna make it next to impossible. So is Holly's ordinance is a great start. Is everybody okay with that being a starting point? Should I run that by the city attorney to see if there's any

overarching concerns? Yeah. It doesn't have to be 2,000 feet. I measured from two brothers parcel up to where kind of the areas, and it was about 1,500. Mhmm. I just did 2,000 because there is a I don't have a I should have forgot it. But there's ordinances in Utah that have it set as 2,000 feet. So I thought that would just be a good jumping off. Right? That gives enough of a of a buffer zone from a residential area that we're not worried so much about the safety.

Or the noise and the dust. Noise or the dust. Do have one random question. No. It doesn't really matter, I guess, kind of, but let's say we do set that ordinance in the works. Sounds great. They go establish we get a a gravel pit somewhere, and in five years or ten years, development starts to encroach upon that 2,000 feet. Does that affect them at all? No. We can't No. Grandfather. Because they they're already there. Right? Like The grandfather doesn't So anybody who chooses to move in at that point understands they're moving into an area that doesn't help with that. Yeah. I mean, they better. I'm just thinking, like, in the the Milky Way area. Like We have a barn. Excited about all the cows and stuff, but they've been there for fifty years. Right. So it's like, you move in there, you get what you get. Hey. You should've spent ten extra seconds just looking at your front window while you're touring the house. Okay. That's awesome. I'm not even Yeah.

Something that I'm not even gonna yeah. He would argue.

K. Well, I'm happy to take that, have a discussion with the city attorney, see if there's any glaring problems with it, with all the new codes got approved this year by the state regarding gravel pits, and we can just build from there. Is that

I mean, I just don't see a problem with not allowing it above 700 or seven hundred east. Well, I mean I mean, two thousand fifty. Zones that are there don't and the the Good point. The geology is probably fantastic for it. Uh-huh. But the geography isn't.

Well, I guess maybe that's one good thing about Or the road plan. The mountain rec zone, if it goes through, everything that gets turned into mountain rec zone can never be a gravel pit. So Yeah.

I can't remember. In Holly's proposal, was it a conditional use permit?

No. No? No. We could add that.

So one of the things they talked about in that I'll just share a little bit on that, about conditional use permits. Should we have them or should we not have them? They're really an administrative thing. And it if we want to be around every time someone comes to us and meets all these conditions and say, okay. Well, you met him, so we have to approve it. Then then that's fine. Otherwise, just put it in the code, and we don't have to approve it. It's already approved by the code itself. So there's that's the

I guess it just goes back to whatever we build into the code. If we build an ambiguity, you're gonna want it to be a conditional use permit. But if we make it very exact, there's really no point in making it a conditionally used permit because you're exactly right. They're gonna come in. They've met all the requirements. And you can't say no. All we can do is say, thanks for applying Yeah. Approved.

Here's here's your here's your sign.

Here's my sign. So, Mike, are you arguing for a conditional use permit or against a CEP?

I'm Yes. I think I'm arguing more for the specificity that, Ollie has provided us. The only thing that I have questions about, of course, is that I mentioned is g, the access restrictions. And the only thing that I'm worried about really is the stuff on the hill. If if there was one to be built on the hill, then how would they get the product out? And there's only there's only a few ways. And there are certain houses that will have every single truck that goes in and out of that gravel pit pass by it.

Right.

And I just think that's totally unfair to them and and to the rest of the community that we'll have to especially centers or not Center Street, but Hyde Parkway and 200 South, and there's a few others that are really gonna get a lot of traffic. And I I know how Smithfield does it. They've got the cement plant up there, and they have a plan where trucks are only allowed to go down certain streets on certain days, so it kinda divides the misery. And that's the only way that we I mean, if if it were to happen, that's what we'd have to make sure was in the code so that they had to follow their own plan. And we just maybe we tell them, sorry. You can't drive anywhere on Saturday or Sunday. So those are the times that people really wanna be in their yards and enjoying themselves. And when you can't when you can't hear the person next to you talking because the trucks are going up and down the street, which which my family has experienced on 200 South. It's just it's no fun anymore. There goes your Saturday.

Well and there's so much development up by and there has been in the last seven years that I've been up there up around me. It's all gotten developed, and so that's the reason for that is we have trucks going up and down all day every day doing those developments. So adding more to it would be

Well, would they have to come up? They would just well, it depends on where the if the city was to to get one.

Well, they would come down a you would think they would come down a thousand to go to that to the new road that goes out to the highway, but I don't know.

I don't know either. So but I like this.

I'd love to say g is great, but No. I get don't see any practical way of No. I that I just do that. I just do that. Attorney says? Yeah. Yeah. We'll see what the attorney says. I I know there are restrictions you can put on it, but with all the new laws that have been passed, I don't know what they are anymore. So we'll run it by him and see what he thinks we can do.

Ned, are you okay?

Yeah. I'm fine. The the only thing I was sitting here thinking of is, you know, be careful if people are if it's if the developer's leveling land and he has a bunch of surplus dirt. But up here on the up here on the hill, there's no dirt. It's just really a gravel pit up here on the whole thing. And so they're hauling it away. We gotta let them do that. But, you know But that wouldn't be That's the one thing, you know, that that would be kind of a little bit tough. They gotta they gotta be able to haul it away, but not not not for it to be commercially a gravel pit. That makes sense? Right. Yeah. We let we let that happen. We've even allowed, like, the lone cedar development. We let them can get a condition to use permit to harvest gravel,

but they can only use it back on the lots that they develop. So they can't they can't sell any product outside of their development. It all goes back into landscaping the yards that they're for the lots that they're selling. And the mountain red guys have asked for the same thing. When they go in and start leveling things out to build, they wanna harvest those materials and use them back for building their trails and things like that. So the city's allowed that. But, yeah, for commercial use, we're just describing an ordinance to regulate the commercial sale of those materials outside of

potentially outside of the city limits. Right. I guess when I guess when they take that to the lawyer, we need make sure that the final language comes out and doesn't preclude those kind of things.

Yep. K. So then you may wanna relook or just double check the definition of mineral extraction activities to make sure that we that still allows in development use of that material.

And Holly made it real easy where she cited the state codes and everything else, so we can look those up real quick.

She's example to all of us.

You are so welcome. Thank you. Thank you. I love that random citizen laughed during that moment. Mhmm. Either

Did you do the same thing for medical cannabis? I sure did.

I sure did. Medical cannabis was more my brainchild, and then I plugged it into AI to just get the proper verbiage.

I cannabis one.

Sorry.

I'm moving. I looked through I looked through quite a bit last couple weeks after mister Michael Moses' email. I I no. That was gravel. Yeah. Gravel. I went through quite a few cannabis codes throughout not only Utah, but Idaho and Montana. Mhmm. Sorry. Is definitely suggestion, like, not

My little my little, joke moved us on to the next item. Sorry. It's your meeting.

We're gonna go what are we gonna do? I don't know. If we're done talking gravel pits, you can move on. Or is any other comments on gravel pits? K. Let's move on to Rocky Mountain High. Oh, sorry.

Well, I'm just Is that the new John Denver. John Denver. I think this is a good starting point also, the one that Holly created because it it actually is pretty similar to that Draper one that's in here. Yes. So I do more specifics

for, you know, like, about school zones, things like that. Well, Well, and then I changed the hours as well, I believe, in the Draper one. Or It's a damn spot rather than hours. It's way broad. And I'm like, if this is a pharmacy, let's go off pharmacy hours. Yeah. It's six. F a r m Sure. And then I also put in there signage. Like, there could not be any signage that has a marijuana leaf or a marijuana plant or anything like that. Nice. Like, it like, absolutely no picture of a marijuana anything.

Yeah. I think this is a good

Yeah. It's been the only the the green cross. So the red cross, the green cross is what I've seen everywhere.

Well, I really like the Wholesome the Wholesome Company in Salt Lake. Have you seen those billboards? No. It's from yeah. It's for we. Sure. And it says the Wholesome Company, we delivered in brown boxes. Hilarious, but not in my backyard, Melinda.

Got it.

I wish she was here.

K. I'm gonna just say the same thing about this one. I think it's good. I have even less idea of what medical cannabis requirements are than gravel pits are, so I don't even I'm not even gonna venture to guess if any of this is legal or not legal. I'm just if everyone's okay, I'll send this to the attorney, and we'll just get his comments and go from there.

That's my

point. Maya, I'm like, I I have a few just one comment, I guess. When the county looked at this a few years ago when I was on the county planning commission, I dug into it a little bit, talked to Mark Ashcroft at the county extension office, and I was trying to come up with something for the county ordinance. And Mark just said, it's way too expensive to grow well in Cache Valley. We just need a lot warmer climate to even do very well. So the pharmacy stuff, I don't know about. But as far as growing it, he's like, it's he just said, economically, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to put much effort into that. Doesn't mean they won't. Doesn't mean someone couldn't. So I agree we need something in there, but he acted like it wasn't gonna be a huge booming business in our valley.

Yeah. As I say Greenhouse. The greenhouse, they sell them at Costco now.

Yeah. Yeah. I I only have two comments. One is maybe, like, we could put a I think it was in the Draper one that said something about, you know, the number of cannabis related businesses per x number of population.

Right. One per 40,000.

Yeah. That'd be okay. And Yeah. That like that in there. And then the second one was I think there's the cannabis related where they process the weed to do different things and not allow that in any zones or maybe industrial. I don't even know. You know, that that's gonna

So they're just selling product that was shipped to them. Yeah.

Yeah. Sounds good to me. Yeah.

Yeah. If they wanna grow or what's the

Yeah. I mean, I think you should put down there until we have 40,000 people, we can't have a cannabis store. Yeah.

We only have one.

I'll be gone by then.

Yeah. When we hit 40,000. Me too.

So I'll just change that a little bit.

Maybe we should we'll just save that for 40,000, but we'll count North Logan. So they already have one, so we're good. Just put North Park.

Yeah. Go ahead. North Park. The North Park region. Share the same police department. That's what's gonna be policing us.

Exactly.

For one So that But one police department. 3,000 department. One per police department.

So we're already covered because North Logan is the defense. Draper

That's in the Draper. Guy. Ordinance.

Draper City. To a trip. Ouch. Number of shops per

For county? I'll I'll check with the attorney. There might be something in the state statute, but my guess is it's gonna go back to, like, counting county zoning requirements only really apply to the unincorporated areas. That's my guess. But like I said, I know even less about this than gravel pits, so I'll ask the attorney.

Okay. Alright. Any other comments? Or we're I guess we're having a conversation about I see that all the the signs, the billboards, having a conversation about weed.

Utah does not have a specific population based requirement. I'll tell you later.

K. That was the last thing on the list. Marcus raised his finger, which means he has one thing to bring up.

I do. One thing. The city council the planning commission asked the city council if we could do workshops to talk about mixed use. The city council said, sure. Anytime you're available. So the planning commission needs to pick a day to hold the workshop, and the city council will make it there.

Two weeks from tonight at 06:00.

Like, better looking. Is that what you June 4?

Yeah. Just right before our regular meeting at 06:00.

June 4 at six? Does that work for the planning commission for the whole planning commission? That works for Melinda.

Mister Michael, I think, has a conflict. Yeah. I I do, but that's okay. I can I can get on the the Zoom? I'll be in Richfield.

So for everybody else, June 4 at 06:00. Would that work? K. City council, mayor, you hear that? June 4 at six.

Good. Perfect.

So that sounds like a great time then.

Might actually get something done. Is that what you're saying? A home flight?

Alright. You said it. I motion to adjourn.

Alright. We have a motion to adjourn. I I see that there's nothing left on the I second. On the agenda. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of adjourning this meeting, say aye. Aye. Aye. K. I know we had more than three, so we're good. Who was the motion and the second for that?

Motion, second. K. Thank you.

We wanna wish Ned our best.