Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

of business is citizens to be heard and we did get an email that you sent. I don't know if you want to say anything at the dis as well or just are here to to listen in on that discussion. Yeah, to listen in.

Okay, great. Um but we did receive two comments um from citizens uh via email. We have one um from Eve Tolman acting um in her personal capacity uh just mentioning uh the uh non-motorized um ebikes um on the parkways on the nonmotorized travel plan which is one of our agenda items this evening. Um asking to address speed limits on trails along the parkway and enforcement of speed limits. Um, basically talking about kids on e- motorcycles that are exceeding uh the 20 mph speed limit, people of all ages traveling at excessive speed on on ebikes and on scooters. Um, asking uh from a perspective of a safety issue and then also asking us to talk about about the legality of electric motorcycles um just in gerally specifically when driven by underage um operators. Uh and then Ann Jagel's comment was similar talking about what kind of non-motorized vehicles might be allowed on the bike paths and the walking paths. Um if that includes electric bikes and if there are speeds um also talking about lines separating the direction of traffic mentioning that there are increasing number of unpleasant interaction of the path um because of folks going really high speeds and not paying attention to other pedestrians. Uh, all right. I don't think we have any other public comments. So, we will move on to our next agenda item, which is approval of the minutes uh from our last meeting, the September 25th, 2025 meeting. Is everything good, Julia?

The sound is coming through my computer, so I have a hunch that I muted yours instead of unmuted. tab down to [Music] okay. Hello. Hello. Hey Joanna, can you guys hear me through the chamber? is test.

I can hear you guys but just through Johanna still not through the chamber. Can you hear me? Best team test. [Music]

Hey Joanna, can you hear me? didn't leave you saying that she can and normally I she may not be listening live. That's fair. Can you hear me now?

Oh man. Can you hear anything now? Okay. Well, they can hear us all through my computer. So, the only issue functionally is that on YouTube my Oh,

you on YouTube on my laptop. Well, they can hear us all through my computer. Shut the mic. She says she can't see yet. They can't see. So it's not actually. So I think Chambers are not live streaming. Your laptop is live streaming if that makes sense.

Absolutely. Okay. I'm not sure if we need to Dang it. Okay, I hear you. Huh? Ka is right. Summer says someone can hear me.

Okay. We also can't hear. Dang. Um, I'm not sure how to live stream on here. I feel like I normally do it on my laptop. You taking calls? I'm I'm

chatting with her. Um, sorry all if anyone out there can hear us. We are trying to figure out some technical difficulties here in chambers. um we're having with the live streaming and um getting our video going here. Okay. She died. [Music] mixes.

You guys say something in your voice. Check on two.

It's picking up on the guys.

Check one. Check. Check. I can try a different combo of mute on this.

There's some echo. Can you hear us? What was that? What' you do?

So, can you hear us on the Zoom yet? That definitely picked me up for a second. So, was that because Yeah, these still are I think Did you like click it and uncclick it because it started raining?

Yes. Can you hear us yet from Zoom? No, I think that's maybe. Yep. Okay. I'm going to hope that this works.

Can you hear us from Zoom Lamp? Yes, we can. Thank you. Yeah, we just didn't have audio on in chambers here. Sounds good now. All right. Well done, everybody. Could you hear everything we were saying, Corey? We could. Yep. And I think on YouTube, it was just Johanna and uh my computers that were were recognizing on YouTube, but now that you guys are up, you're recognized in YouTube, I think. So, I think we should be good to go. Okay, cool. But, but everything was heard on YouTube, I guess, is my question. Uh, no. No, nothing. Uh, well, that's not true. Yes. through Johanna, I suppose everything was heard. Okay.

But I would have to double check because I had two volumes going. I had my my Zoomland and YouTube overlaid with each other. So, if you want to give me a second, I go back and look and see if Johanna's Eve is saying that uh she heard the summary of the letters. So, that was Okay. Okay. Um

uh and no uh Ann did not speak in person, but she um sent a letter as well um as Eve. I just was asked for a clarification. Okay, let's try this again. We we had citizens to be heard. We had two letters. Um uh I think everyone heard who was here present in chambers. Um I'm going to restart the meeting at uh 6:20 p.m. because we did have to take a break with some technical difficulties here in chambers. Apologies for that. Um, on to our next item, which is item number three, approval of minutes, uh, from our September 25th, 2025 regular planning commission meeting. Um, folks had a chance to look at those. Can entertain a motion or make any corrections if need be?

My name is spelled wrong, but that's okay. Oh, that's not okay. We'll change it. It's supposed to be It's not Patton. It's Taten. Tat. It happens all the time in mail land and you know uh so with the correction T not a P. Yes to Tatin Patton not patent. Um it happens typo. I will make a motion to approve the Moab City Planning Commission minutes from September 25th, 2025. All right. A motion from Shaylee. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. Second by Miles. Any further discussion other than just correcting the spelling of Jill's name? All right. All in favor say I.

I. I. All right. Motion passes. Minutes approved. 50. Uh this evening we have uh two discussion items and a uh an action item. Our first discussion item is 4.1 a workshop for the 2025 non-motorized master trails plan. This is a draft of the master trail plan. Excuse me. Um and I will kick it over to city staff whenever you're ready. Our presenter this evening is Katie Murphy. All right, Katie, come on up. All right. You want to just introduce yourself for the record?

I'm going to start by Johanna, can you admit me so I can share my screen?

Yeah, there's Summer. I knew that's who it was going to be. Sorry. Hi. We got it. All good. Summer, we just we did have audio in chambers is what got crazy. Thank you. Full screen on that background. Sorry. Here we go. Thank you. [Laughter] Yes, I think YouTube's working. Okay, Katie, all you great. One second. I'm um working on it Zoom. Maybe we do need her.

We might need you. Maybe we do need you. Yeah, Summer. Scratch that. We got it. Oh, we got it. Got it. Pass things around. So we are going

urban design a little bit more just for fun but um oh somebody's got Ulta our consultant worked on that so it's a good example you're gonna have to mute you'll get the weird feedback no I'm your computer it is muted yeah she is could mute that microphone Perhaps. Do you guys have sound on your computers?

Seems like I have to

You shouldn't need to Don't mute that mic. Don't move. Don't mute the the chambers mic. It's something with your laptop. Sorry. I get no days off. It doesn't seem like there's any feedback in Zoom world, but it's that you need to mute both your microphone and your speaker from a presenter's laptop. Yeah, you got to mute your speaker, Katie. Boy, you only get to be helpful if you show up. Sorry. Oh, that's right. That's right. I'm just teasing. There we go. I'm sorry. I'm just going to bust. It's so complicated. I appreciate your expertise. So Katie was passing around the urban bikeway design guide from the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

Um and then the which year is that trails master plan? 2011 20 The 2011 trails master plan. So this is the plan update. Correct. Yes, it is. Okay. So now I'm going to share my screen. Okay. Nope. Wrong screen. I was thrilled. It was really good timing. Why is it not?

Yeah. Share the screen that I want to share. [Music] technical difficulties. We are just waiting um here in chambers. Yeah. All right. Okay. Let's see. I have to change to this one though. See if that'll work for us. Yes. Okay. All right. Victory

event. Okay. Hello everyone. Um, I'm Katie Murphy. I work for the Grand County Active Transportation and Trails Department. Oh no, it wants me to accept cookies.

GCAT. Okay. I work for GCAT. Um, which for those who don't know is a county department. Um, we do all types of things. We, um, build trails. That's what the trail team does. and I'm technically under the trail team in a temporary grant-f funed position. Um, and my role is updating the non-motorized trails master plan. Um, so a little bit of background on the plan. Uh, the one that the version that's going around right now is from 2011. Um, the non-motorized trail master plan was originally written in 2005 by Trailmix and has since been updated in 2011. So, it's been a really long time since it's been updated. Um, and in the plan itself, it's recommends that the plan be updated every five years. So, we're a little out of date. Um, and another relevant, uh, previous plan that this one is building off of is the unified transportation master plan, uh, which was completed in 2020. Um, that was a joint project, uh, between the city and county just like this one. um and did make quite a few recommendations related to active transportation um you know walking, biking, rolling um although those uh projects were sort of um listed on a one-off basis. And one of the things that we felt was missing from that plan was thinking about an active transportation network as a holistic um sort of bird's eye view of how do we make sure that people can get around town and to all the most important destinations in the county by walking and biking um between every single high density residential area, every single important destination uh the supermarket, city council chambers, library um uh trail heads, um in sort of a a continuous standard of of comfort and safety. Um so that was

part of um our goal with this plan. Um so back in 2023 um when I was uh working as an Americanore Vista in the planning department for the county um I applied for the um UTPA grant which stands for transportation planning assistance. Um, so Mattie Logowitz, who's the director of GCAT, and I applied for that together. Um, we got the grant, which is really exciting. Um, and, uh, we started, um, sort of working on on, uh, that process in 2024. Um, or yeah, fall 2024. Um, and, uh, we wrote the grant to be sort of, uh, two things together. one, an update to the non-motorized trails master plan, which for the most part was a recreational trails plan. So, there were a lot of um recommendations for hiking and and mountain biking trails um and you know, a couple equestrian and ski recommendations. Um and a few recommendations related to active transportation, but not a ton. So, we really wanted to do an update to the recreation side of things. It's been a while. Um there's some need for some new things. there's some need to address sort of new issues and desires that are coming up in outdoor recreation. Um and there's also a need to really think about how do people get around town and around the county without cars. So bringing those two things together. Um another hallmark of the uh transportation planning assist assistance grant program is that um an interface with land use planning is really important. So in the way we wrote the grant, we really were trying to tie Oh dear, no longer sharing my screen or I've been uh disconnected.

My Wi-Fi is still connected. Maybe I just have to re It says reconnecting. [Music] Maybe I will try to disconnect and recon. I'm on a hot spot. Hey, back in. I'm back in. Okay, great.

I'm gonna reshare my screen. Sorry everyone who's listening. We had a momentary disconnection. Sure. Okay, great. Okay, here we are again. Um so uh one of our goals was to really interface with land use planning to be thinking about um where are the places uh in the city and county that are planned to be higher density in the future. How do we make sure that uh places that will be high density residential areas are well connected via active transportation and how do we uh sort of plan for integrating um trails and trail planning into the land use planning and uh sort of development process. Um, so all of those were were focuses of the plan. Um, so the plan was uh the grant was $120,000 total. The city provided $30,000 as match funds uh through an interlocal agreement. Um, and the funding was used to hire a consultant. We hired Alta Planning and Design um, and to hire me to coordinate the process. Um and that um urban bikeway design guide that's uh going around is a good example of uh Alto's work um because Alto worked with NACTO uh the National Association of Cities and Towns um which is sort of one of the sort of forefront groups that's thinking about um active transportation planning to come out with that which just came out this year. Um so it's kind of a a good example to show what Alta can do. Um we're super impressed with the work they've done so far. um city representation on the TAC. Um so we have a technical advisory committee that's been meeting uh since we had a kickoff in March. Um and uh Colin Topper, Alexi Lamb, Mark Gillisent, um Sydney Morer, Patrick Trim, and Savannah Thomas have all been uh represented on the TAC and

sort of bringing the city perspective in into things. So the city has sort of um been with us every step of the way here and that's really important um to us. Obviously if you're trying to create connections across the county, it's really important to be able to do so between the city and county. And uh one of my goals for this project was not to let the uh sort of liinal area um at the edge of the city county boundary be forgotten um and to to plan for how we're going to uh make connections across that that are really important because I think that has happened often in the past um is that that projects that are right on that boundary area just kind of like often fall into this vacuum. So I really don't want that to happen. Um next slide. Um so projects progress that we've made so far. Um so we posted our RFP in January 2025. Um in March we selected Alta Planning and Design. We had a um selection committee that was um made up of county staff members and um county commissioners. Um, and in April we had our kickoff. Um, and we had a bike and walk audit with the TAC and uh, Ulta came down in person and we uh, biked around town and looked at a bunch of areas that we um, knew of as being either problems or opportunities. Um, and then this uh, spring into summer we uh had public meetings. Um, so we had several specific stakeholder meetings. Oh no, it's terrible. Um, I am reconnecting again.

Sorry folks, we're just having I think at a certain point just continue just in the interest of time. Yeah, without folks being able to see the screen. Just get disconnected. Yeah, I mean I'm being heard on Zoom, right? Okay, we have a pretty Why don't Yeah, I know you worked hard on the presentation.

No, that's all right. Um and um so yeah, so uh we had public meetings, we had uh several stakeholder meetings, we had a vulnerable street user stakeholder meeting uh where we were looking working with groups that work um organizations that work with groups that have particular needs from streets. So, we were talking to groups that work with kids, with seniors, um with homeless residents, um with residents who might have English as a second language, um and just basically people who might have like particular needs and wants from streets and that was really really cool. Um we got a lot out of that stakeholder meeting. Uh that was our first one. Um right, I'm going to try again share the screen. Um and um so that was great. We had a business owner stakeholder meeting. We were talking particularly to business owners about uh what active transportation infrastructure has worked for them in the past or not worked, how the sidewalk is outside their business, what we might be able to do to attract uh more business with more vibrant streets and just kind of talking through that. Um, and then, uh, we also had a couple public visioning meetings both for recreation and active transportation where we let members of the public uh, draw on maps and we we talked through what their biggest priorities were, um, for connections and, uh, what areas are problematic right now. Um, so, um, that was public meetings. We also had an online survey and comment map. You can see a still of it over here. Um, basically, uh, folks were able to, uh, do an online version of that same mapping process, um, where they could sort of weigh in on, I'd like to see a trail here. I'd like to see, uh, some kind of infrastructure here. Um, and that combined both active transportation and recreation trails on the same map, which was really cool. And also, folks could uh, vote up or down other people's ideas and make comments on them. And we found that really, really useful. Um and that was one of the main things that we

used to develop our active transportation network. Um so then uh after the survey and comment map closed uh Alta sort of um created their first draft of the active transportation network recommendations and GCAT uh created our first draft of the recreation recommendations. We had an openhouse um in September um where we showed our draft plans to the public. Um, we uh sent out mailers to all land owners whose uh property has um either already has been affected by the 2011 master plan or might be affected by new recommendations sort of explaining what that uh what the implications of that were um and giving everyone a chance to get in touch with us. Uh we had a lot of good conversations with land owners. Those have been ongoing. um and just sort of going back and forth about uh explaining to folks what this means and um taking down their uh comments and and desires. Um so now we're here uh in October. We have a 90% draft which is exciting. Um and uh you all saw a draft that was uh finished I think two weeks ago. Um there has since been an update and I'll go through that today. Um and uh the blue here, the teal colors is sort of what we're expecting to do next. Um we're going to finish up our final draft. Uh we're going to take into account um the sort of uh feedback and recommendations that we hear here tonight. Uh we're also going to be presenting to county planning commission. Um we've gotten feedback from city staff um which has come in since you all saw the draft two weeks ago. So I some things that you've noticed city staff may have already corrected. Um, and Alexi can speak to that. Um, and so we're going to take all that feedback into account. Um, we're going to get back in touch with a couple uh property owners and um then we're

hoping to um to do uh public hearings in November. Um we're going to do a public hearing here ideally um and um and one at uh county planning commission. Um and then we are hoping for adoption in December. Um, next. Um, so I just before we get into discussion, I just wanted to go through the logistics. Um, so, um, I know Johanna had reached out to you folks to see if you could do a special, um, meeting on November 9th. Since then, it's become clear to me that we're not going to be ready on the county side of things um, for that. um we have to present to county planning commission and we needed a um uh basically a directive from the attack which we got today. Um but that directive was for uh the meeting on November 10th and so to be able to take that um that feedback into account from county planning commission and you know have our our second draft really incorporating that before we post it um we're going to need to have a later date. Um, so I am recommending a special meeting uh the week of the 17th or the 24th. Um, and just want to apologize again for all the sort of logistical wrangling and I know you folks are are coming in on a date that's not scheduled for that and I really appreciate it. Um, and you know, feel free to blame me.

The 24th is the week of Thanksgiving. It is the week of Thanksgiving. Um we

so perhaps a meeting the week before um could work um and you all can you know discuss that amongst yourselves and and get back to me. We don't have to uh finalize that now. Um okay so I just want to run through the most recent update of the plan. Um see Here we are. Okay. Wow. Screen sharing is working for once. Um, so, um, has everyone had a chance to at least, you know, take a cursory look at what we sent out? Okay, great. So, what we were trying to do with that draft is to get you the most important proposal items, even if they weren't sort of laid out in the exact order, um, or, you know, fully finished draft. So, we've done a little bit of polishing since then. And Alta has also uh sent us in their um uh some additional stuff with the program and policy recommendations and um their sort of description of of how the um public comment process worked. Um and so it's starting to look a little bit more like a plan now. Um but you all saw the most important stuff. Um, and I'll also be sending this out, um, this, uh, second draft out for you all to see. Um, so, uh, it's broken down into, um, a couple sections. We have our mission and vision, existing conditions, um, pretty part for the course with this kind of plan. Um, a description of the public engagement process, um, kind of showing the survey results and kind of explaining the mandate for the recommendations that we're making. Um then there's the trail network which is going to be uh proposals from Alta um and also proposals from us. Alta has been working on active transportation recommendations sort of hard surface stuff. Um and uh GCAT has been working

on more uh soft surface recreation related stuff. Um and then Alta has created a toolbox for us which is sort of implementation recommendations and guidelines. Um, and that looks like um renderings of the type of uh street infrastructure that they're recommending. So, you know, what does a shared use path look like? What are the dimensions that we're actually looking like at here? Some images so people can really understand what that's going to look like. You know, what does a um protected bike lane look like? That kind of thing. Um, and then appendices will be a space for all the extras. Um, so you all have seen this. This is the vision framework. Um hasn't changed much since you saw it. Um and this was developed based on um public comment. Um and uh sort of what people were were saying uh in the survey. Oh gosh, I'm not sharing my screen anymore, but I'm going to keep going. Um and then guiding principles. Uh the public was able to weigh in on those in the survey and we got overwhelmingly positive response to that. Um, okay. Well, whatever. Um, goals and strategies. So, I definitely want to discuss this with you all. This is really important um to us. This we 100% developed this based on uh based on survey responses. So, we were going through and pulling all the most common responses that people were giving and trying to figure out how to sort of like consolidate those and build a vision out of them. Um, so the number one recommendation that we got by far was was about connectivity. That was um in both recreation and active transportation. Um, that was sort of a major barrier to people using active transportation in the county. Um, and also um a barrier to people recreing too, not being able to access the recreational trails that they want to, you know, by bike or by walking um and

having to to drive somewhere far away. um uh investing in close to home trails sort of related to um to that question of being able to get to the trail. Um so there is limited space um close to town um for developing new recreational opportunities. So a lot of that is about using the space that we have wisely creating, you know, alternative lines that add a secondary difficulty level to an existing trail. Um, and you'll see some of those in the recreation recommendations. Um, okay, I'm finally back in. Let me jump back in here. Okay. Um, and then, um, adapting to extreme heat and weather. This was a really interesting one. So, we had a very similar survey that GCAT did uh back in 2023 um that uh people were asked pretty much the same questions about what the barriers to active transportation and recreation were. And at that point, uh inclement weather and extreme weather were options and they did not rank highly as issues. That has changed in the past two years. Um, it's worth noting the timing of the survey. It came out during the summer, you know, so maybe people are thinking more about the heat. Um, but we've also had some extreme flooding events, um, and extreme weather events. So, um, we definitely wanted to make sure to to prioritize that. Um, and so a lot of that has to do with, um, increasing shade on our trails that we're recommending. if we're thinking about, you know, putting a shared use path on Spanish Drive, how are those people going to cool off on that sort of like long hot um extent and uh thinking about like the Moab Canyon Pathway barely has any shade at all? Um and so thinking about how do we create islands of shade and sanctuary even in places where it's not feasible to to put uh trees all the way along. Um and thinking about river access. Um how do

we get people to the water? Um some of our trails we're recommending a couple new trails that are along the water um in our plan. So thinking about okay if they're along the water are there ways to to get people actually down to the water and we've been um talking with the DNR about that and um yeah how we can how we can make that happen. Um thinking number four is um in some ways kind of a catchall. Um, so this is where the sort of ebikes com e ebike comments came in. Um, and that there were many many many I would say like 50% of the comments in the plan were either like pro or against ebike inclusion in various areas. Um, we don't really have a say over that on most of the trails. Um, you know, that's up to the BLM. Um, but what we can do is we can respond to uh the BLM's decisions. Um so part of that is uh planning for e device uses, planning for infrastructure maintenance and user education needs associated with the legal introduction of e devices into new areas. Um so um you know if we have that directive, how do we respond to it? Um and then a second part of that is improving access for adaptive equipment which has been a pretty big focus of GCAT's work recently. How do we uh make more mountain bike trails dimensionally um accessible for for hand cycles? Um and make sure that those are at a range of ability levels and you know that there's like exciting trails that you can access uh with a hand cycle. Um and then um uh number five is is also kind of a catch all. We we had all kinds of, you know, desire for easy mountain bike trails, more long trail running trails, which I didn't know this before, but after talking to a lot of trail runners, turns out that there is sort of like an optimized design for a trail running trail. Um, and that uh people like longer ups and downs instead of the

short ones that uh you have on mountain bike trails. Um, more more hiking opportunities. um uh and people were interested in in more trail heads for skiing. Um and we have to the best of our ability uh sort of responded to each of these. Um and you'll see those reflected in our our recreation recommendations. Um next, anticipating and planning for increased demand. Um so, um it's been happening. It's going to continue to happen. Um there are trail heads that are um you know really uh there's a a lot of folks on them. Um, and we saw that a lot in the visitor survey. So, it's really interesting to contrast uh like resident um and visitor experiences. There's obviously a lot of hiking trails out there that are unsigned that uh residents know about and visitors don't. Visitors end up getting um sort of sent to all the same places, which you know there's uh there there's pros and cons to that, I think. Um, and so this is a little bit of a sort of subtle process of going through and trying to figure out, okay, are there trails that would be appropriate for increased usage and being prepared for that. Um, and you know, are those trails that are less environmentally sensitive that are close to places that people are doing similar activities? You know, is it a hiking trail that's a similar difficulty and relatively close to another hiking trail that people like to go to? That sort of thing. Um and uh next continuing to support and implement maintenance. So that's really important. Um generally we feel like we've been doing a pretty good job. Um and uh that was really reflected in people didn't have a lot of comments on the survey about sort of general maintenance issues. Most of the maintenance comments were places that have had extreme weather events in the past couple years. Um so part of that is figuring out, okay, how do we make a plan that allows us to respond to extreme weather events? How do we pivot

um our normal maintenance schedule when something like that happens to be able to go all in on a particular trail? Um and you know maintaining a fund that actually has the has the ability to do that uh for maintenance. Um and then finally working with outlying communities to plan localized trail systems. So, there are a lot of places where uh we didn't have the ability to do sufficient um sort of in-person um uh public process to be able to plan trails there yet. Um but there are places that we identified where people are interested in seeing more in new trails. Um so just sort of a directive to work with those those communities in the future um to see what they want, what they'd like to see, what would feel appropriate to their sort of environment and economy. Um, so, um, those are the goals. Did folks have have thoughts or comments, um, on the goals. Yeah.

Uh, I just had mostly an overall question because I think this is awesome. Um, I think it's really important to have in an outdoor method like this. Um, I would love I I poured through it the last couple days trying to like maybe I'm missing it. What are some of the negative I mean I know there's ebike obviously we have we have those comments from from citizens but what are when you guys have done this outreach and you've talked to property owners what are the negative things that the city and county are combating that we don't know about

yeah for sure I mean obviously ebikes are huge um and that's on both sides like or people who are like we need ebike access to everything I you know I have I don't feel like I can access all the things that I want to access on my ebikes. So, there's that and then you know the other side of it um people being upset about ebikes. Um so that's one thing. Um and I mean certainly um not so much on the survey responses but in terms of inerson interaction I had and uh sort of folks coming to the open house. There's certainly uh people who uh were affected by the 2011 master plan who didn't know about it. So there was a trail recommended that was adjacent to or crossing their property. um that they were sort of surprised to find out about um and sort of didn't understand the implications of what that meant. Um so I've spent a lot of energy really trying to explain and educate everyone about um sort of what what are the implications of um having a trail on a previously adopted plan. um which are that um if there's a trail on an existing uh master plan uh that intersects with your property um for the most part, you know, while while you're living there in most situations, it's it's just a suggestion. It's just a um it's just sort of like a wish list. And usually those are on there because there's a desire to give the general public access to public lands. Um and there happens to be no other way to get there. Um, another thing that I think is is often misunderstood by the public is that the lines that were drawn in the 2011 master plan were not intended alignments. Um, they were intended connections. Um, and so it's sort of saying we need to get from point A to point B. We're not necessarily saying this is the way to get there. Um, and any alignment would be determined with a private property owner. Um, and then the third would be

that like the city and county don't have the ability to use eminent domain to to get trails. like that's not going to happen against people's will. Um the only thing that um sort of is a is a legal provision is that um if there is a trail that is identified on an existing master plan, then if that property subdivides um then at the discretion of planning commission, city or county planning commission, um in the development agreement, um you know, whoever whoever develops that property could be required to uh to put in an easement for uh like a trail crossing that property. Um, so I've done a lot of uh education about that, trying to talk to people. Um, hearing concerns. There definitely have been a lot of people who are concerned that their property was involved in that. Um, and you know, for some folks it's mostly a concern of nobody explained this to me. Um, and then for other folks, you know, sort of continues to be a concern. I don't I don't want it on the plan, that sort of thing. Um, so that's that's certainly like a major point of contention. Um,

what what happens then if they're saying I don't want to be on the plan, that's my property. Yeah. So, um we have cataloged everybody's um responses to that. Um and we did uh change a few things to corridor studies um instead of sort of like lines on the map the way they are in 2011. Um we added very few um additional trails crossing private property. Most of our new trails um are not crossing private property and um I think the ones that are are crossing like like private property wouldn't be the right word. It would be like a like a city or county property. Um and uh yeah, so some of them have been changed to corridor studies. Uh which would mean that a study would have to be conducted before um any easements could be required for that property. Um and so and it's especially appropriate in certain places where um alignment would be really tricky. Um like one of the most controversial trails from 2011 was the uh Pat Creek Trail which was a sort of recommended trail along the alignment of Pat Creek. Um sort of similar to the Mil Creek Parkway. Um I I I've heard both sides of it. I've heard folks who are like, "We would love to, you know, have something like the Mil Creek Parkway that's like really beautiful and shaded and natural to be able to continue going up the county." Um, and as an alternative to an on street trail, there's like sort of an added value there. On the other hand, it does cross a significant amount of private property, more than any other trail on the plan. Um, and with uh flood plane considerations, it would be tricky. Um, so we have turned that into a corridor study. um instead of a a sort of straight up recommendation for like let's have a trail here. Um so

the difference when it they do a plan what is the difference on a map as far as a cor door stud. So essentially that would mean that that quarter study would have to take place um before Yeah. prior which would cost money and you know time staff time um but still giving rights to the plant owners or the the land owners sorry right so yeah so if if something like that were to be required in a subdivision that wouldn't be able to happen until after a corridor study had taken place um yeah and that corridor study would I assume be for the entire corridor um rather than the uh individual properties um this was something that came from our consultant um so I can also get more information for you all for next time if you want. Um,

thank you. Yeah, sure. Hey everyone, can you hear me? Okay. Yeah,

I just wanted to add one kind of additional contingency with that as um Utah law is continuing to evolve around this topic. I think one of the major thresholds that is is the major one is I think what Katie's mentioned is a a subdivision triggering mechanism but I would like to extend that a little bit beyond that to uh general development. Um so not it's not always just the platting exercise that could trigger that. It could be anything like a master plan development or a plan development generally and even possibly a site plan uh trigger mechanism like a level two administrative but uh land use authority decision. So that that bar while at the state level is continuing to refine. I just didn't want to have that kind of as the only thing on the record of a property or saying, "Oh, I'm not subdividing." But yet we as a city or county might be engaging them.

They they could have a kind of a misunderstanding of the levels of engagement we might have. But just wanted to plug that kind of at these triggering thresholds. Thanks, Corey.

Um, any other questions right now? So, I'm curious like kind of bringing it back to what we're doing in the city. Um, you mentioned of course that the BLM has a lot to say about like what ebikes can do or what trails are available to ebikes on their property, but here at a city level like we're theoretically doing a fair bit to uh like have raised bike paths that are separate from traffic. So, how could we build like hard infrastructure that would kind of separate the like heavily trafficked bike trails because even bikes moving at a high rate of speed whether or not they have a battery attached to them like they are a challenge for pedestrians. So my question is like if we have certain thorough affairs that we identify like this takes this requires a lot of bike or like gets a lot of bike traffic could we kind of build infrastructure around like hey this street is given a sidewalk for pedestrians along with a two-way path for bicycles so that the pedestrians and the bikes aren't interacting some of these high use areas and the like ebike question or the general like pedestrian versus cyclist question is a little bit alleviated.

Yeah. Um certainly I uh my personal opinion is that um you know which is based on some knowledge is that uh in density high density areas in the city it does make sense to have those separations of uses. Um, a shared use path is more appropriate in a place like um, you know, the Spanish Valley Drive shared use path, sort of a long commuter corridor where you're probably going to be mostly having cyclists traveling longer distances. You may still have some pedestrians. Um, but the sort of like prioritized like long commuter um, is uh, is sort of like the design user. Um I do think um and I have I have been going back and forth with Alta about some of the in town uh facility recommendations and if you all have facilities in town um that you're particularly thinking about that um maybe should be shifted to more separated uses definitely give me that feedback. Um, I know Alexi, Mark, and I sort of went through um, Alta's initial proposals and actually uh, narrowed it down and cut out some of the shared use paths in town that they were recommending. Um, I know that we're maintaining one along 400 North um, in the proposals. Um and that was because that is um sort of a a really common thoroughfare for kids um between the city or between the elementary school and sort of like the dense residential areas over on 500 West. Um and in some of those situations, if a lot of kids are riding bikes, it might make sense to be able to have that shared use path so that kids can ride on the on the sidewalk or on a raised area. Um so that was one sort of exception that we made. Um, but we've looked at a couple different options. Like obviously you can have a sidewalk in a protected bike lane or a buffered bike lane. Um, you can have a shared use path. Um, or you could have some situations where you

have both. Um, so on 100 West right now, there is a two-way shared use path on one side of the street. Um, I think that's the example that most people can think of most quickly and there's also bike lanes on either side of the street going in either direction. I think there's pros and cons to it. I've heard folks say they feel confused about what they're supposed to do. Just gonna say that's the common feedback is what is this because there's a bike lane, right? Yeah. Which I think Yeah. can be remedied with signage. Signage. Some understanding that like for the most part sidewalks are geared towards pedestrians, right? Um and that if bike lanes are provided, the bike should be in the bike lanes instead of the sidewalk.

Or, you know, you could you could put a suggested speed limit on it. You could say kids and, you know, people going under 10 miles an hour um are welcome on the sidewalk or maybe even lower. Um though it does seem to be a metric that Durango is using for any of his shared use paths. Um and I think like like if I had to say anything in regards to ebikes or all of that

um one of the big things I would say is within city limits on our particularly on the shared use paths like keeping people to 10 miles an hour and part of me thinks that we can do that with enforcement but part of me also thinks we could do that with design. I mean, like maybe not speed bumps, but like if we can design pathways to lend themselves towards people moving a little bit slower and if we can make sure that any shared use paths have more visibility on them because like speaking as somebody who's often a pedestrian with my dog on shared use paths, like I'm happy to get out of the way of the bicyclists if I know they're coming. Yeah. Would you see them?

Would you apply that to the Mil Creek Parkway as well? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 100%. I use that all the time. Yeah. And I think and that seems to be consistent feedback. That was certainly something that was mentioned in both of the public comments that we got tonight. And then also it's something that um trail mix last week. There was a comment that was substantially similar talking about how people are starting to feel unsafe on the bike paths Mil Creek Parkway because because teenagers frankly are riding their electric motorcycles um which are not allowed but it's happening. Um

yeah, just figuring out uh figuring out a way to have some sort of very clear consistent mechanism both for education and enforcement. I think uh unfortunately limiting it to vehicle type is really difficult. Yeah. But I think just a across the board speed limit I think makes really good sense. Um

and a weird devil's advocate here uh going to just come from Europe a couple months ago. You go to Amsterdam and they absolutely tell you the bikes will not stop for you. There is no they don't get in trouble if they run into you. Like it it is absolutely just a walkway, but they don't have like the grass between the street and the the bike path. There is a walkway where pedestrians walk and there is a bike path,

which is where I really liked when we're talking about, you know, the differentiated uses of on some level maybe separating some of them on like I I know I like grass fast is great just devil's advocate of is there a way to differentiate this is where people walk for sure slower people go if could I jump in guys really quick

thank you so much there's there's kind of a buildup of comments reaching back so I'll try not to get too strung out but um I think to what Shay's talking about and also the point Miles made is by design we see this in in motorized transportation as well, which is kind of where my second comment's going to go, is by design. I think that's a really uh insightful comment of if we're designing pathways that feel like highways for bicycles or motorized, you know, ebikes or or motorized

bipad, they're they're going to use it like a highway. And the same thing with uh transportation modeling. So that's I think a really insightful concept that I think with this non-motorized transportation master plan combined with and working with our uh unified uh transportation master plan and then as the city develops its complete streets policy and this is kind of going back to a little bit more acute point Miles made about how the city's going to be designing in its infrastructure kind of literally designing the streets to accommodate some of these things. We'll have classifications of roads and levels of service that we will typically classify as we we see this street as this level of service. Therefore, it would qualify as this standard of design, meaning its cross-section will have and this is what we'll build out probably not with this next code rewrite, but very immediately after that. It's going to be a fairly heavy bite into our title 12 of the code, but it's something that we've been working on for about the last year and are going to continue. Um, Kang Creek Boulevard was kind of what spurred the intent of doing this across uh a unified platform in the city. And I think this is also Takaya's comment in the confusion of none of our streets are really coordinated. they're they're dysfunctioned to where you have one style or level of service of a street for a particular block and then it immediately changes into a different style and service. So you're having this very Frankensteined pattern of how people both in motorized and non-motorized mechanisms move. So this is where we're yeah we're grappling with all of these um guiding documents that will have to unify and lead together. But then I think that where the rubber hits the road so to speak is uh when we go and we begin to repair repair and improve these

street sections, we have our complete streets policy for the classifications roads and it's already preset this road. And I think to Shay's point with the calming piece, the more we begin to separate, the more those uses are going to I think have challenges and pros and cons. But I think that idea that European style particularly in the Netherlands is uh and I can't remember there's a particular term for it but it's kind of a chaos theory where there there are no lines on the street there are no sections for cars there's no sections for people everyone's sharing and because of that the alertness of whoever is engaging in that is much higher and there's actually by data far fewer incidences because everyone is paying attention versus saying I'm in my lane and it doesn't matter better. Excuse me. I can text to my phone because I can anticipate going, you know, 40 miles per hour over the next 300 ft. But, you know, you can't do that um when there's a bit of that chaos there. Anyway, I didn't mean to get too strong out, but there's a lot of really good points in here, but it's going to be a blending. I think my major point is aligning our uh unified transportation master plan with this non-motorized as well as our cons complete streets policy. Thank you guys. Sorry for the ramble.

No, it was good. It was a good ramble, Corey. We love an informative ramble.

I want to um add a quick thing to Corey's point. Um is that there's there's a concept that I've been using in framing my conversations with Alta um about these recommendations. Uh that is the movement to place framework. So there's this idea that there is a spectrum of places that should be designed for different types of of movements or different degrees of sort of staying to moving. So the closer you are to a city center, the more dense uh residences and commercial destinations are, the more you should be thinking about uh staying and placebased interventions. How do you slow everything down? Um and a lot of times that involves mixing of uses. Um, and so an extreme example that I'm thinking about is the superb blocks model in Barcelona. Um, which is sort of like what Corey was talking about, um, you don't have a distinction between the sidewalk and the street. Um, uh, cars have to go very very slowly and you've got people walking, uh, people biking and cars uh, at a very like only locally specific cars. um with uh street infrastructure sort of like throughout the space and it essentially turns the street into a plaza reclaims a lot of that real estate for public space um and you know you're able to put a lot of things that you didn't have space for before like shade trees or a you know water fountain or benches or you know fun stuff um and uh so that's like a very like sort of like one extreme end of it and then the other in places like the Spanish drive bike path is a really good example um where it's less dense and people are mostly kind of going longer distances from one place to the other. It does make sense to have more separation of uses and you are kind of trying to create a bike highway. You want to get people to work. Um so you actually do want different design in different places.

Yeah, I'll echo that. And then like you know different speed limits in different places, right? Like moving down Spanish, I think a 15 to 20 m hour speed limit is fairly appropriate because people are trying to get from point A to point B. Well, we're like on the Mill Canyon Parkway, too. makes sense if you're I mean the biking you're not looking at commuter biking as much or commuter walking or walking to school it's fitness related so

and and particularly also if there's anywhere for like if there is an existing sidewalk even on one side of the street and we can then do bike paths then it's more appropriate for the bikes to be moving quicker because pedestrians have a protected area to walk in. Um, and then the only other point I kind of wanted to make on the regards to the ebikes thing is there is kind of a standard amongst uh communities that bikes that can do over 28 miles an hour or that are over 750 watts uh are no longer classified as like bicycles. They are e- motorcycles even if they have pedals.

And so like basically what I wanted to put on the record is I think we should move towards classifying those as e- motorcycles which in some ways they already are. They're not technically legal on these trails, but creating uh creating a certain enforcement so that basically it's it's very hard for anyone in our like PD or otherwise to identify them on the fly. But if they are like if they stop someone for a speeding ticket, then if they are also operating an inappropriate vehicle on the uh parkway, that should be a a further fine or otherwise. And that way we are encouraging people to operate the correct vehicles where they go. Um Yeah.

Yeah. I mean I think it's a fine now if they're not um not for a speed limit necessarily. Yeah. It's a it's by class which is really hard to enforce. Yeah. It's hard to enforce but also it's a non-motorized parkway and the the I mean that like surons are motorized. So, well, yeah. So, what I has have heard from the community now is the feeling is that it's being enforced as to whether or not they have pedals. And like I've got a buddy who's will do 50 miles an hour and it's got pedals. Yeah. But it's definitely not like it's it's more suited to being in traffic on the street than it is to uh going down a pipe back. Yeah.

Um so the way we're addressing that currently in the plan is we're defining non-motorized as anything going less than 20 miles per hour. Um, and so that kind of provides a pretty easy baseline for enforcement. It's not based on class. Um, like if somebody's getting clocked going more than 20 miles an hour, then they're they're speeding and they're they're doing something that's not appropriate for um that facility. And uh it might be worth looking into I'll discuss with Alta um this sort of 10 mph either speed limit or guideline potentially uh for um shared use paths. I mean, I I to play devil's advocate a little bit, I do know that Mil Creek Parkway is something that is used by people to commute to work, and I know there's a lot of folks who ride their bike faster, like an analog bicycle faster than 10 miles an hour. Um, so maybe maybe 15 miles an hour might be more appropriate for certain commuter stretches. Um, but I'll talk to Alta about it.

Yeah. And I think that is absolutely correct, but also it's worth noting like where do where where do we see a heavy pedestrian traffic on these shared use trails? because I have certainly heard people talk or had people talk to me just about people on an analog bike still moving too quickly on these trails. So, you know, like because people on road bikes can ride a 2020, you know, I mean, it's like there's there's there's common, you know, there's common courtesy with with different and also analog bikes don't always have people not but many analog bikes don't come with

but people not signaling I think is another thing too. I mean, there's it's it's a lot of just etiquette things, unfortunately, that like there's only so much we can do, but I've almost been hit like five or six times. Yeah. Me and Bear, too, because he's a slow old man. Just takes him a minute to get off the trail. Yeah. About what? Something. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. But no, I I I I I will say there has been there has been a significant uptick in I I'll just call it what it is, illegal use on the on the pathways on the pedestrian pathways in town with vehicles, which is what they are. Um

and and I think that I've talked to a variety of people who have attempted to have discussions with users of those vehicles and I think it's it's not it's landing on a lot of them are on dead ears. Exactly. Yeah. So, interesting because you should be a licensed adult. Exactly. And that's another thing too. I think there there is a component of the the wrership that that are not only operating them illegally where they are, but the fact that they're operating them period is is also um against the law because they're underage. Um you have to have a driver's license to do it. So, um, lots of things, but I think anything we can give to have there be more consistent,

um, just standards. And then also, I think this will this should come with a, you know, an uptick in in presence from from city staff, including law enforcement probably. You know, what component of that? Just maybe just education for a while. Um, but yeah, I think that's I think that's huge. I think just like studying this paper really clearly. So, so I don't think you folks, sorry, Corey. Um, just briefly, um, I don't think you folks have seen the program and policy recommendations yet. We tab. They're in there. Yeah.

Okay, that's great. Um, and you know, as you all were talking, I looked through to, you know, see how much uh sort of ebike usage and speed limits are addressed in there. And it seems like we could we could have some more. Um, I think, uh, where it comes in is the education section where they're talking about, you know, education for high schoolers about, you know, proper trail usage and and wayfinding signage that's clear about speed limits. Um, but I might give Alta further feedback that we might just need a section on on speeds um, and uh, signing speeds and enforcing speeds and and sort of being clear about expectations of, you know, how fast you can go in different places.

Yeah. You can go from one extreme to the other. You know, the other thing I've seen is people trying to bike when you have five across person line together. So, it's educating on both sides proper use of of these pathways. Yeah. And any enforcement has to be like fairly reasonable for the officer. Like you cannot have them like looking up a serial number on a bike to determine like how many watts the bike has. Yeah. Um, so yeah.

Yeah, if I can jump in right there. Um, I think you guys are on a great a great conversation that is going to be obviously at the council level really um, one of the one of the major elements of how do we actually implement and enforce? And I think when we're talking general enforcement, I think Katie early on kind of nailed it for me, which was um wayfinding, education, and then what maybe I'll best call the social contract element, which is the etiquette. It is the the awareness and kind of self self-imposed enforcement regulation of our community. Because at a certain extent I our officers even as it is now we do we just we're at a a level of service within RPD we do not have the capacity to be enforcing on and these these are important issues but there are major life safety issues that our officers are often obligated to take priority with and we're seeing this with the the OV both noise and speed limits right now is being very careful about um relying too much on a law enforcement type enforcement program for this. So the for in my mind again designing it well, designing it in the correct places, wayfinding, markings, um color systems, um things that are easily identified and also easily enforced by the community, um for lack of a better word, you're going to have people out there correcting folks, if you will, um on where to be and where not to be. So, I I think just keeping that in the back of our minds, let's not let's not drift too far into the PD being our primary uh enforcement model for this.

Great. Yep. Um what else do you need from us today, Katie? You want to just time?

For sure. Um I'm just curious. So, um I'm curious if you folks had any, uh like specific aspects of the active transportation network that you found concerning or wanted to be different. Um if there's an easy answer right now, that's great. If not, um you can have a couple days and uh send me more specific feedback over email. Um definitely. I mean, this is really important. This is this is where the rubber hits the road with the planning process and like I want to make sure that the facilities that we're recommending are actually facilities that we want to see in town that we think would benefit public life. Um so definitely think it's I think it's on the right track. You know, I've participated in some of the the the input phases through this and other venues, but

I think connectivity is like the biggest thing and I'm glad that that is the biggest thing and that rose to the top from everybody. You know, there's, you know, I remember when like the skunk alley bridge went out for the first time from Mountain View and it was just a big hassle for like a third of town. Yeah. To get places. So, um I'm really glad that that's, you know, sort of rose to the top for everybody and makes makes total sense.

Great. Um so, in the interest of time, um I'm going to leave my contact information with everyone. I'm going to ask that if you want to send in more specific um information uh you do so by uh a week from tomorrow the 31st. Um just in order I'm going to compile all the feedback from city planning commission, county planning commission, the TAC all together into into one bunch to give to our consultants so they only have to do one um sort of second draft. Um, I'm also gonna um make sure that you all have the most up-to-date uh version of the PDF. So, I'll um send that to Johanna.

Um, and there's also um a couple uh maps that I can't show you anyway because um the screen share isn't working. Uh but I'll send those out over email. Additional recreation maps. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Katie. Thanks, everyone. Someday the Wi-Fi will work for me again. It doesn't work for me for like a week. It's frustrating. No. Um, very frustrating. Okay.

All right. Thank you, Katie. Uh, next item of business is I lost my agenda, but I know it's the water shortage plan. 4.2. 4.2. Item 4.2. Thank you, Joe. Excellent vice chair you are. Um, yeah. Okay. Hi, Alexi. Hello. The last time we went over this was March. So, I'm going to do like a two slide recap and then we'll just directly go to the plan.

Cool. Uh, okay. Why are we doing this? Um because in our 2021 water conservation plan, which is state required, we said we would. And also it water shortage response plan is good for being prepared in case we have a water equipment malfunction, distribution, failure, contamination, drought that affects our springs or wells, or any anything else that could cause a shortage. And um a lot of this is related to the water conservation plan because you're going to start hearing from me after this about the water conservation plan because we have to update it every five years. So that process, the last update was in 2021. We did a number of things to do water conservation that were in that plan and then uh started with the water shortage response in March. Since then, it's gone through staff review. The city attorneys reviewed it and we are back here talking about what it looks like after the changes that came from that. Oh, um actually I'm going to go right back here because I had a few questions. Um okay, so things that are particular interest, uh anything that you want to talk about, but also uh making sure that the revisions that we made are in line with what you intended. uh whether this was a city attorney question. Uh it's simpler, more straightforward if we specify the days of the week for watering and saying instead of saying three. So saying three out has more flexibility. Specifying is easier in the case that we actually have to implement this because it's in writing what it's going to be. Um what the exception criteria would be. Um there was a note that some violations are more enforceable than others. um that's probably unavoidable, but um if there's any concerns that we have that we can talk through, we can do that. And also

um this one's probably going to end up a lot in the planning office, but also preferences about whether we adopt this as a part of code, as in a plan is in code, or whether we adopt it as a resolution and change the code in such a way that it references a plan that is not in code. All right. So, uh, changes that have been made. We added a summary and changed the date. It's been a been a few months.

Love it. Uh, okay. Going through here. Um, there's been the emergency replacement water supply for outages. Um, we'll see that as I kind of scroll through here. Um, other than that, we start with the purposes and principles, move through what we would actually do if we had a shortage, and then there's some notifications, exemptions, exceptions, and enforcement. Uh, in our previous discussions, we talked about graywater, so we specified that that's not restricted here. Um, we added perennials um in addition to trees and shrubs. I think for the most part that remained the same. There were a few changes here. Um specifying food bearing plans are for human consumption. Specifying uh making it more specific in the definitions what we're talking about. Uh we added a table um with uh some specific numbers about what our numbers have historically been for our water use um to give some reference for the formula for the trigger which is how much of our total total water supply is being demanded. Um so as you can see we're generally significantly over what is available. Um, and by the time we get into triggers for this, we're getting closer to the line. Then we cross over the line. We have less water than we are using. Um, as we move into more advanced stages of response. Uh, based on feedback from this group, lodging laundry was moved farther up on the line. Um the comments were essentially that if we're running out of water and we have issues with this that it would make sense for more things to be implemented with the people who are visiting town as well. Uh okay

this is some changes that were made in the non-food plants and when different types of watering would happen. Again, we moved lodging laundry up here. Um, in our emergency replacements, water supply for water outages. Uh, Levi provided a plan that was adopted in 2015. Um, that is a system vulnerability assessment and emergency response plan. This plan is already in place in public works. The difference is it does not talk about how to reduce water use. It talks about what to do if people need water. Um, so it's more of an emergency like people need water right now, who does what when. Um, so instead of trying to rewrite any of that, it's saying like go see what's already in place there. Okay. And then down here there's a little additional information about uh violations. Some edits here about what would happen with an infraction. This could be changed. It's something that's up for discussion. Um but there would be eventually right some consequence for the violations. Okay. Um are there any discussions questions about revisions and whether they reflect what our previous discussion in March was about or anything additional that you would like to see? I mean, I think you kind of hit it on the

the head like Yeah, I appreciate you taking our comments and and implementing it. Yeah. And I can't believe it was March. I know. I said that. I was like, that's not right. I triple checked. I was like, no, really. Was it May? And when we get to this point in water problems, I think the the violation in parks the enforcement is too lenient. We're at this point. Well, we got other like this is a pretty intense eent plan. So, I'm sorry. I I know I wasn't part of this

that that might be my only comment is that like you know I think if we are in those like very severe sections that like violating this should come with a heavierhanded okay like like we literally don't have enough water for our people and we're asking them to like only you know only use water state of emergency that's not not at first but when we're down to like you know 60% of of our you know water that we need and are asking and this talking about 15% like some of those things is like at 15% what's our what's our policy uh what 15% water I hope we don't I don't want to see that day

yeah let's see okay going back here so here we're 25% under where we yeah there's a difference between what we demand and what is available so we're trying to cut by at least 25% at that point yeah we are short of water so significantly See the weird Yeah. Weird short. Can I just ask so enforcement wise I think is there a way to like because there's different and I'm sorry part of the original part but there's there's different stages [Music] more appropriate to differentiate the violations by stages like if we're in Y you guys are right on it more aggressive.

Yes. Yeah. Go ahead Corey.

Yeah. So that's it's a really great comment and I think really apt to the the subject we're working on is within the compliance process we generally operate off of a 30 6090 and by that I mean we often will initiate with a warning letter which is not a violation but it's just an initial engagement and upon uh lack of compliance within that 30 days we move to a 60-day which is a notice of violation but no fines no additional uh actions to that point and then it goes up to the 90 where we finally are issuing a final notice of violation typically with a fine. Uh we've been able to really advance beyond that per day of continued violation depending like overnight uh accommodations for example that every night continuing beyond then can be a reoccurring fine that that adds up quite quick. So we can look into that. We've really reserved that structure of fine programming for for those things that essentially you could manipulate the system out of it utilizing that longer time frame. So long story short is I can look into two things for this and um as we're rewriting the land use code we will be looking into codifying a bit of our compliance process is what we call a track two and then administrative bump. I know that means nothing to you guys, but basically that means you're aware of this violation and we're sending you straight to notice of violation with the fine. Um, and then without the compliance within that time frame, which can be anywhere from 2 weeks to 30 days, we move you to a prosecution, uh, which is now you're in front of a judge. Um, so it's not necessarily a mandatory increase in fines, but it does escalate the judicial process for an infraction style uh, violation. We can also look

Oh, go ahead. I meant a little bit differently. Sorry. I I get what you're saying that you're steeping those, but I meant like depending on where the water percentages are of having steeper fines, like if we get to an emergent level at five and they're not cooperating. Gotcha. Gotcha. You know what I mean? Like based on where the water percentages are, the steeper, not so much the fine gets steeper because they don't listen. Gotcha. I don't we don't currently have that structure. It's usually the fine is what the fine is. It's how quickly is it applied and how quickly you go to a judicial system. But that is something I can look into because like if someone's if we're at a three level, we're at 105% trigger

with a target reduction of 15% like it's a big deal. But like if we're at a five level because something happens whether it's a natural disaster or something and then they don't follow through. I mean that's catastrophic to everyone. Sure. If one person doesn't listen,

we can look into what Corey said. And then additionally, we could look at making like the the track to violation faster or steeper in in this code. And then something that might help address what you're talking about is it's like at an advisory level, you can't violate this code because or this would be a code. We'd have to adopt it, but you wouldn't be able to violate anything because it's all um voluntary. and then it becomes like more stringent as we get to an emergency and then if you do any of these behaviors they were all mandatory so then you're in violation of the code. So it might be that we need to just make it like steeper for people to get there like once they are violating it but um it's it might be built in well enough um that people aren't going to be violating the code as much or it won't be as big of an infraction until the bigger like the more intense stages. I would I would suggest that possibly we look at how communities in places like California that have had to implement fines for water usage or have had to do days where you know you are not allowed to water or otherwise do it because it's my understanding in those communities that when it's being seen as dire like you can be ticketed on the spot and your water can be shut off because it is one thing like if we are in an emergency situation we had a natural disaster and we are desperately trying to preserve drinking water for the people who live here in town and we're going through a 30 60 90day process. Uh like moving fines along like it may only have to happen for a week while we get that well back up and running. So having this like long we'll give you a warning and then we'll like we'll be a little sterner and then we'll finally actually start to like uh if we are genuinely in emergency situation like I think we should look at there are there are communities that I'm aware of that can like ticket you on the

spot and come shut off your meter if you are watering your lawn when people are not being provided drinking water. Um, and and while that is severe, and again, I hope I never see that day, uh, it would not make sense to me to put something like this forward without having an eent plan for, you know, enforcing because we're asking a lot when we hit the emergency level. And if the most we can do is write a strongly worded letter and then have to wait a month to figure that out, that doesn't actually seem like it it takes teeth away from this plan,

right? Alexi, have has Nathan commented on I guess and for those of you that might understand this, there's essentially two two avenues of enforcement and compliance and so infraction is essentially that fines, but then the other one which we do have currently in the zoning code. It's just kind of peppered oddly between different mechanisms is a criminal system. So a certain violation violation would be a misdemeanor versus an infraction of a fine. So we have we we currently utilize that system. We were wanting to unify all land use items, but as this is an emergency response plan, it could warrant a criminal violation system versus an infraction violation system. Um, Lexi, I don't remember Nathan mentioning anything about that. Um,

he did not. There's certainly ways to answer Miles and Shaye. Like I think we can certainly within the infraction system install that the both how quickly you move through and to the level or the intensity of what that means. Um, but ultimately it is kind of one of those notices of violation with a fine associated and there has to be for due process a period of compliance um before you'd be going to a judicial system which I think to Mile's point that might not be fast enough. Even as quick as that might be, that still might not be quick enough. Whereas, uh, the criminal process is kind of that you're getting a ticket. Here's your ticket. And it's kind of more immediate. It's more acute. So, I can look into that with Nathan and Alexi, but um yeah, I wasn't sure if we checked that box yet.

I think also just like it'd be I'd be very curious to see how other communities do it. They may not be, you know, communities from within the state, so they may have like other tools that we don't have, but I am, you know, would would be happy to model that after kind of how other people are doing and other communities are pursuing this. Sure. I I did look at models and some other codes that are in the state, but as Corey said, we can talk to Nathan and then we have some different things that might be on the table so we can work on making it stricter. Yeah.

Just in the emergency situation. I want to be clear with that too. Like as Yes. as we're working our way there like people can be brought around to understand but if we really are at a point where we are not able to provide everyone drinking water or we are doing everything we can to do so having someone you know like watering their lawn would it would irk me at the very least. Yes. Yeah. Right. This entire plan is only for a situation in which we have some sort of escalating water shortage uh not for any everyday water use.

Yes. I had a question about the um the indoor excess language that's in the different stages of sections and um I feel like the the language around recommended reductions by percentage is a little abstract and is may a be hard to communicate the public about for people to understand what the recommended action actually is and also is very difficult to you know track or or monitor progress. address once.

Um, and I also saw your your little note um, Alexi under the emergency section with the question about where do evaporative coolers come into this equation. Mhm.

And um I mean I feel like I would especially if this kind of phrase around indoor excess and usage reduction was maybe clarified a little bit to be a bit more practical from like a resident um standpoint. That that would fall in that bucket for me. But I would hate to like specifically call out reductions in cooling use for what will probably be like an extremely hot and dry situation that would potentially put at risk people who happen to have evaporative coolers as their cooling technology as opposed to a conventional air conditioner.

Yeah. I think the, you know, the flag about like obviously leaky um swamp coolers is an opportunity, but asking people like, "Oh, if you have a swamp pool, sorry, you have to turn it off like you know in the heat of the day seems seems a bit astray of like public safety,

right? Because there depending on how like dire this situation was. The reason why we don't have anything in here is because we didn't want to tell people to turn off their cooling system. Um, and the reason the question is there is because there are solutions like cooling centers and other things and if we don't have enough water, it's open whether that would be something that would be useful for people to have access to if they were trying to conserve water in that way. Um, we

cooling also uses a pretty small amount of water actually at the end of the day. It's not like flushing your toilet a bunch of times is is more work than like you know a swamp cooler uses throughout the day. Um it's recycling a lot of the water but it's a it's a pretty slow trickle at the end of it. So I don't know that I feel like people people remaining cool in their homes is a health and safety issue. Um and so I would be really hesitant to have that really be prioritized at all. Um, and that is still the method that a substantial number of of folks here use to cool their homes.

I also think like if we wanted to get nuanced with that because I like swamp coolers can actually use up to 150 gallons a day. Okay. Um, which is

fairly significant. I mean again your like toilet could use 5 gallons of flush. So it'd be fairly easy to hit 150 gallons with your toilet as well. Um, but possibly, you know, when I think about that, I think about like how you could gear that to like uh specifically deal with people who were at risk. So like I have I have done rush jobs on hot summer days to make sure that uh like seniors want coolers are working because one it's hard for them to leave their home and go to a cooling center otherwise and two you know for us like we could probably sweat it out on 105 day degree day and be miserable but if you had you know small children if you you know like like for those those vulnerable communities I think like I don't know if it needs to be put into this language it to that degree. But keeping that in the back of our mind as we put this together like I think you're completely right

functional swamp cooler being the operative term because if it's leaking like if your pan is cracked and it's leaking that's a different that's a different story than a functional cooler that's not that's hard definition anyway with the pipe you know faucet pipe maybe you could add like evaporative cooler yeah we can add evaporative cooling leaks in here Um and then on the indoor access uh right now right we have percentages which as you said were abstract and part of the reason is because we one we can't enforce it and two we don't exactly know how it would make sense in your house. Um

so I do you have ideas about how we can make that more practical? Honestly, I feel like we're if we're getting to these stages of kind of communication about behavior change. Um I feel like just the even vague language language like um finding opportunities to reduce water usage makes more sense than saying reduce your water usage by 25%. which would just be like an example like instead of you know don't take baths take a quick shower you know or reuse yeah shower every less toilet flushing or instead of a percentage using examples

you know those are maybe examples of like like escalating examples of how you would save water in your house turning your when you I mean I was taught that as a kid where you turn it off when you brush your teeth that's that's what you do you know I mean but not everybody does fill a sink of of water to wash your dishes instead of doing it exactly not letting it run. Yeah. So, but different stages should have different objectives like hey you know agreements 25% how do I I have no idea I don't know I don't know how I would reduce mine because I do that stuff

which makes sense because we mostly don't know the scale of her behaviors and more or less the point was just escalating like if you're doing it a little now do it a lot later so we can I can try to come up with some examples examples like just basic this is how you can guys can I Just real quick, can we work just to try to not talk over each other as much just in the interest of our poor notetaker being able to understand what we're saying and just make sure you're kind of interjecting because she distinguishes who is talking as well and I think it can be confusing sometimes. So, I just want to keep an eye towards that. Thank you everybody. Um,

yeah. I wonder if there's an opportunity to like I'm looking under the emergency section where it says indoor excess should be eliminated. Um, and I wonder to me it feels a little different the way it's defined in these different bullets where there's sort of like malfunctioning equipment due to neglect or whatever, but then there's also like optional kind of in for indulgent water usage. Um, so I wonder if there's if it would be helpful at least in thinking about communicating and providing like instructions and examples to separate out and say like for the emergency section for example like all non all optional water usage must be avoided or something like that. Um, and that maybe can help distinguish those different levels of of strategies for communicating in the less emergency stages, too.

Okay.

What can we do today to help you so we can just try and keep an eye on time?

Yep. I If you have um ideas and this can be something I draft and bring back ideas about criteria for exceptions that was a request moving down here for exemptions and exceptions. So this was pulled largely out of our landscape code and uh we'll add in an appeals process. That was something that the attorney requested, but we'll the planning team and I will figure out how to add that one in. Do you have things that you would want in there as criteria for exceptions? Um, we have some vague things in here like unnecessary hardship.

Yeah, I mean, having done a bunch of exceptions to the landscaping code already, I think they've been pretty straightforward. we've been able to use the criteria laid out to make I think reasonably objective uh decisions when things come up. I think it's definitely one of those we don't know until we've done it a few times kind of thing is what I've realized about the exceptions in the code and like the landscaping ordinance. It's made we've been like okay yeah the exceptions process has worked. We've come to good conclusions. We haven't gotten a whole bunch of inconsistency or flack on it. We're sort of sussing things out as we go and kind of smoothing what the the new requirements sort of end up being. Um I feel like this is probably one of those things too.

Okay. Um then I'm gonna leave it the way it is. We'll work on the appeals process. Um yeah,

um one quick thing, the language around the unnecessary hardships creating inconsistencies with the purpose and intent of the standards. I'm looking back at the purpose section um which says pretty clearly purpose of the plan is to conserve water and protect the integrity of the water supply, maintaining water for essential and safety purposes. Um, and I I do I think that covers the sort of like public health um elements that we touched on a little bit and that also I could see being, you know, something that would give a a good cause for granting an exception, but just wanted to see if other people felt like that like the purpose is kind of sufficiently clear when it comes to the types of exceptions we might be looking to grant.

I think it encompasses that. Yeah, I mean the second paragraph for me says all the things of like this is covered in another plan if as far as the conservation plan. This is just for temporary shortage issues. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to if that's if everyone's comfortable with that, we'll leave the exception process as is. The purpose and some of the other language in here would be good guidance. Um, are you comfortable that some violations are not very enforceable like whether people are flushing toilets or not? Yeah. Okay, great.

Every house Alexa gonna be the Yeah. the bathroom auditors. Um, and last one is, uh, do you have a preference, we'll continue to work on this, between adoption as part of the code, as in the plan goes into the code, or as a resolution in which we reference the plan. I feel like that's a council question. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. comfortable hunting that we're going to structure it. On that one,

okay, that's if you don't have a preference, it's fine. I I think we'll just put it together in a way that make like makes the most sense to us and then if we get different guidance from council, we will unless you have other comments. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for working on this since March. Yes.

All right. Uh thank you so much for your patience. um who I am assuming are applicants for our one action item which is uh 5.1 consideration and possible recommendation of MOAB ordinance number 202516 an ordinance to annex the property located at 1410 South Highway 191 Moab Utah 84532 um located in Grant County. I don't know why it says that, but it is. Uh, all right. Take it take it away. We'll get through this quick.

Yes. Um, okay. So, the annexation that we're going to be looking to make a recommendation on today is located at 1410 South Highway 191. Uh, currently in Grand County. You can see the Grand County zoning map at the top and our zoning map at the bottom with all the labels of what everybody's zoned as. Um they have a pre-anexation agreement which determined the zone designation um uh conceptual plan of what they're going to be building um and laid out a specific AE um ratio and number. Um if we want to walk through that we can but it's it's been agreed to. Okay. Wonderful. Um here we can see that it is in our annexation boundary. My arrow is pretty small but you can see it there. And um on our future land use map as well. This is their conceptual site plan. We've got two residential um buildings. The zone differences, the um uses or differences are actually highlighted in your packet. Um so that's more clear there. Um here we are in the process of annexation. We're at planning commission. If uh we receive no

objections, we'll be noticing the public hearing around the 30th to get to the next city council meeting. Sweet. Hooray. So, oh, normally, um, an annexation would be coming to you guys for what zone do we think this could go in and we'd have a very robust conversation about its proposed use and surrounding areas. Um, but with the pre-annexation agreement that's already been discussed, um, but we're following our procedure tonight. Um, any discussion? Our applicant is here tonight.

Thank you for sticking around. Pay your patience. You've had the the pain of being behind two sort of vibrant discussion items. Switch the order in the future honestly. Um, like the mayor has done with council meetings where all the stuff that the public doesn't need to be a part of is later in the evening. Um, no, I don't if there's anything you want to add. I remember the pre-anexation agreement from last year. Yeah, me too. Excited to see this come online.

I'm happy to answer any questions. My project manager here get specifics of the construction. It's it's currently phase one is currently under construction. Um so this is just continuation of that same product same unit mix and ratio of Great. Awesome. Joanna, if you want to put the next slide up. Who wants to do it? So good at reading. Oh, go for it. Yeah, I have.

I like this. We're giving Miles a run. I move to forward a positive recommendation to Moab City Council on Moab ordinance number 2025-16, an ordinance to approve the annexation of property located at 1410 South Highway 191 Moab, Utah 84532. Okay, we have a motion for a positive recommendation from Shaylee. Is there a second? I'll happily second that. All right, a second from Miles. All right. Is there other is there any other discussion um on the motion that's currently on the table? I'm really sorry that it took so long. Yeah. Yeah.

It's great to see housing coming forward particularly with a higher density of AEH. Um that's just fantastic. Um all right. Uh all in favor of the motion on the table say I. I. I. Okay. Motion passes 50. Thank you all for coming. Um, future agenda items. What do we have? Okay, as Katie said, um, we're perhaps having a special meeting. Um, it will not be on the week of Thanksgiving, but we will try to make something work. I will I'm

pretty free that week, so I can make the week before Thanksgiving. Okay. I think I may try a when to meet poll to see if we could possibly meet not on a Thursday. Okay. Um just to open up some possib that week either school board meeting. Okay. Um so I'll I'll send that out and see if we can make it work. If we cannot um I think we'll make some there's meetings at least three commissioners. So great. Okay. And that is actually the only item that I have bubbling up here. All right. We're still planning to meet on the 6th. No,

no, no. I'll send out a very clear email tomorrow um about what we are and are not doing. Um so our next meeting would be our regular meeting that second week of November. Regular meeting. Correct. All right. Awesome. Thanks everybody. I will adjourn this meeting at 7:53