Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Ready to go. All right, we're recording and streaming. Okay, I will call to order this February 26, 2026 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6:03 p.m. Um, first item of business is approval of minutes from our last meeting, which was on the 12th of February. uh a marathon of a meeting with some very dense minutes. Uh but if folks have had a chance to look those over and make sure that they are accurate, would love to get a motion. Um if not, we can make um changes if there are any uh things we need to change in those. Were they looked over?

Well, we are supposed to look over them. Gotcha. I didn't see anything that needed to be updated. Sorry, I lost reception in the very end. Oh my gosh. It's fine. Like going on three hours now. Yeah. No, that was impressive. It's even harder to pay attention that long when you're actually not in the room. I will say I've been that person on Zoom. Um I'll make a motion. Okay. approve them the minutes from 212 2026. Okay, we have a motion to approve the minutes from Shaylee. Is there a second? I second.

All right. A second from Steve. Any discussion? All right. Uh all in favor of approving our minutes from our uh February 12th meeting say I. I.

Okay. Minutes approved unanimously. Moving on, our first action item of the evening, uh, item 3.1, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 72026. A planning resolution approving the offsite parking special exception request for property at 1410 South Highway 191, Moab, Utah 84532. Ready? Oh, and I should say apologies backing up. Uh, at our meeting this evening, uh, in attendance we have all five planning commissioners. Jill Tatton, Shaylee Bryant, Steve Mccclure, myself, Kai Marinfeld, Carolyn Conant. Um, Jill is online on Zoom. Our city council leazison my Loftton is also participating on Zoom. And we have Kelsey Garcia, Johanna Blanco, and Corey Shortle here in chambers from staff. Back to item 3.1. Thanks. Wonderful. Okay. Um this is Red Rock Flats 2 at 1410 South Highway 191. Um in our vicinity map here, you'll see um Red Rock Flats 2 is highlighted in red and then Red Rock Flats is right next door. That'll be important later. Okay. So, this application was submitted on February 19th. Red Rock Flats 2 is going through DRT review and Red Rock Flats phase one buildings are almost uh done with their construction. The request today is that Red Rock Flats 2 would like an off-site parking agreement with its neighbor Red Rock Flats for eight spaces.

And we can see on this map um the six spaces down below and two uh above their access their shared access there. This is a summary of the narrative that was submitted and the full one can be seen in your packets. Um, so essentially Red Rock Flats 2 is short eight parking spaces. Red Rock Flats has some parking spaces to give um because Red Rock Flats is split up into two phases, residential and commercial. When they first started the larger plan, they planned for the commercial to involve some eating establishment which expanded the amount of parking spaces that they'll need. Now, um the commercial uh se phase of Red Rock Flats has not been approved, but they're planning on pivoting away from eating establishment use. So, that'll provide them with some extra spaces to give. Um down below you can see the calculations for this the parking required for Red Rock Flats, Red Rock Flats 2 and then phase two of Red Rock Flats being the commercial building and then the parking provided on Red Rock Flats and Red Rock Flats 2. Um, so we can see that there's enough parking spaces to go around. Uh, what we're doing tonight is approving the

possibility of an agreement. The agreement does not exist yet. Um, in that agreement, we'll want to make sure that there's a section that if the commercial building does at some point become eating establishment that we'll need to re-examine if this is still viable. Um, the two properties intend to dissolve the property line in between them um when financing allows and they have a letter of intent in your packet that they're going to do that. Um, MMC 1709230 allows this process and appoints you guys to be the decision makers.

So, can I ask question? Yes, I am done. You can ask questions to me or we have two um the applicants here. Real quick, I will just ask uh the applicants uh if you guys have anything to add before we um discuss anything that Johanna didn't cover or that you'd like to contribute. Um Ryan. All right. Yes, Shaye. Sorry. No, you're good. Sorry. Oh, sorry. Did you say something, Tyler?

No. Uh, no, no comments. Thank you. That all sounds

I mean I I think that that making uh parking exceptions is important because we're gonna I mean, we're an outdoor community and and I you know, I think there's applicable spots to these things. My question kind of becomes devil's advocate of if they are not the ones who always own this this these plots and someone else chooses to make it a restaurant at some point then then that agreement you know they're like signing away this future possibility where it's like if we didn't make the exception in the first place then it wouldn't be potential issue for future owning in my head.

Yeah. I I totally I get what you're saying. I think for me it's like that's them choosing to limit that potential for future sale, you know. Yeah, I can kind of address that. Can you hear me?

Yes. And can you just introduce yourself please before you speak? Yeah, this is Ryan Naylor at Nichols Naylor Architects and um I mean there will be cross access parking agreements recorded against the piece of property. So it's not like if it were were to be sold, not that it ever will be like it is fully our intent for this project to be unified into one parcel and be a standalone project. But be that as it may, while they are two separate, there's going to be these recorded agreements that would transfer with any um sale of the property that they would be required to, you know, allow this parking um to be used. So, I don't see that really as an issue.

I have a question. How many visitor parking spots are going to be included in the what phase one and phase two? Um my concern is when you know there's enough parking spots for all the tenants, but if they have somebody come and visit, where are they going to park? I mean then in the the ordinance doesn't really address that. There's basically the required number of parking stalls per unit which we've provided. Um the commercial use on the frontage as Johan Hannah mentioned we're pivoting to make it more of a um a resident amenity with shared gym space and um shared work space. So, and the vast majority of the users of that will be, you know, residents of the building who already have parking stalls in there. So, there's going to be an excess of of parking for the project as a whole. Um,

yeah. So, there's 72 units and there's 134 parking spaces for phase one. So, that's enough parking spaces for almost two per unit. Um, which like you said, it meets it meets the current code requirement. It's just sort of shifting around from phase one and phase two. Like I mean I yeah we don't make a distinction between what is visitor parking and what is resident parking. That's we just have a total number required which is intended to account for a bit of both. I think

I mean look I I think this makes sense to me. I think where this project is located, I I inherently am a little more I'm a I'm I think traditionally play fast and loose with parking requirements uh particularly in the downtown corridor. I think we require too much in parking sometimes um in our underlying code and I'm very happy to give exceptions or be in loo when it makes sense which we've done a lot. this the location of this particular um development I think would would lend itself to not being as forgiving with parking because it is located a place that people really do still kind of need to drive to um versus walking or biking. It's not that easy yet. The idea is that it will be eventually, but the reality is it's not quite there yet. Um, but the total property has enough spaces and so I I don't see an issue that way. I think recording the agreements you're planning to record will cover any potential future issues or sale. Um, and you know, this is something that downtown business owners do all the time. Um, particularly the restaurants, they they have quite a few parking spaces required and if you're on Main Street, there's not a lot of available room. And so there's plenty of restaurants downtown that that like have rented parking spaces from Wells Fargo, you know, to to be able to meet their parking requirements. So I think it's there's definitely a precedent for what you're doing. Um it's just nice that it happens to be both of your own properties to do it with. So even I think even if you weren't planning to combine the two, it still would make sense to me. I could provide some comments on this, but I think we're at a place maybe you don't need them necessarily from a procedural context. So, if we'd want to dig in a little deeper, there was kind of three comments within there I think we could address from staff side. And with the comment from Steve, sorry, on

the pause there, I wasn't sure if that was direct to the applicants or to staff to kind of help help balance that question. So, thanks Ryan for jumping in on that. Um,

what I might really quickly say is as far as shared parking or what really we're talking about is off-site parking. We're not actually overlapping requirements. We're just uh allocating the requirements to a proximity. So under a code, this is a quasi legislative action in that it was historically a conditional use uh process, which is to say it is permitted with conditions. I, you know, we've moved fully away from the idea of conditional being a discretionary thing. This is if you do these things, it is administrative, but they are conditions applied to that permitted option. Um, so there's four criteria for off-site parking that are basically if you do these things, it's administrative that we ought to be approving these things, not not a discretionary action. And that seems to be I think through the the presentation and what's being provided satisfied. So, um, yeah, our our ability if we were to say denying it based on that's not a bad commentary to say what and as we're about to move into a land use code update type discussion later on, that's kind of more of hey, is our parking code as it's written adequate to address guest needs, toy needs, any of those elements. Whereas right now, the the code so um limited, it's unsophisticated in that way. It is kind of it I think as Kai has kind of framed it, it it satisfies at a at a base level. Is that great? Uh, you know, that's for you guys to discuss for maybe a future code, but I don't think there's maybe the grounds for or findings of fact to deny this given the quasi legislative action that that you guys are looking at tonight. Hope that helps a little bit. I'd also add, Corey, that um we um you're going to see this project again to approve the commercial component of it. So, you'll get another chance to to uh you know to see what we're doing to make sure that that

commercial part is meeting the ordinance for the required stalls for that as well.

And that's actually really great. Thank you for bringing that back back to kind of Shay's point of hey are are you self- encumbering yourself and I think it's on the record and it's not only beyond that it is the limitations of of yeah they're ch at this time they're choosing to self- encumber which you know depending on strategies they may come back say hey we're ready for that eating establishment used to expand in that space couple years from now couple decades from now and at that point they'll have to come back depending on where our code says and go through the same discussion parking exception well you guys kind of put yourself here is there flexibility or is there not type of thing. But yeah, for the moment that's kind of the disclosure of, hey, you guys are putting yourself in a bit of that boat, at least for the time being. Um, so that was not a bad observation. Again, from Steve and Shaylee, great observations. All right, anything to add, Jill?

Not really. I agree with your comments, Ka. there's enough parking to go around and I think as long as everyone's clear on um the agreements and you know what the applicants are opting into in terms of that kind of self-imposed limitation for future uses and the potential to have to go through a different kind of exception process later um that yeah I don't have any problems with it looks good to me um I agree I think the overall um spaces it's you know you're one difference. I think it it looks fine to me.

Thanks, Jill. Uh all right. Uh if there isn't any more discussion or questions for the applicant, um we can certainly entertain a motion. As usual, there is a uh recommended motion in the packet or on our screen right now. Should go for it. I move that the city of Moab planning commission approve planning resolution 7-2026 planning resolution approving the offsite parking special exception request for property 1410 South Highway 191 Moab 84532 with the following condition. Moab city attorney approval of off-site parking agreement and off-site parking agreement recorded with the county recorder. All right, we have a motion from Shay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right, a second from Carolyn. Any further discussion for the motion on the table? All right. Uh we'll call for a vote. All in favor of the motion uh to approve resolution 726 with conditions. Uh say I.

I. I. All right. Motion passes. 50. Thank you everyone. Moving on to our next action. Item 3.2, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 08, 2026, a planning resolution approving the screening special exception request for property at 1410 South Highway 191, Moab, Utah 84532. New and different property. Here we all right. Ready for you.

Okay, we know where it is. It uh also was submitted on the 19th still in DRT. Um last meeting we approved the buffering and screening exception for the eastern and southern boundaries. Today we're taking a look at the western boundary again. So we have a updated landscaping plan which includes trees and a fence. Um so again we have a natural wash that acts as a buffer between this property and the one to its west. They have added a 4ft fence um next to the parking lot and they have added the required trees. They will also be adding the required shrubs. And then I think our applicants can speak to that last bullet point about how the change in grade affects their ability to fully comply um with this buffering. So the western boundary is standard buffering. So we'll be looking at this middle column. Uh we'll have a one canopy tree every 100 ft. to ornamental trees for shrubs. Um so they are proposing today compliance with the buff buffer depth and compliance with the plantings and are just asking for a exception for the uh screening height. It is meant to be six feet. They're proposing for that completely makes sense.

Y that makes much more sense. Yeah, that helps a lot. Okay, that is my presentation. If you have any questions for the applicants still here,

I am very impressed with your turnaround time on this. I have to say I was like, whoa, this is back already. So, good job staff and applicants um getting that turned around based on our last meeting. Um I don't have any questions. I think that addresses, you know, I remember at least my primary concern was like it's great that you can't see, but the light overflow from headlights, particularly with the parking along that that uh side of the property with adjacent property owners just making sure that we weren't going to have, you know, headlights coming in the top of some of these windows um every night. And I think that 4 foot fence with the grade and the height that the property is at already compared to the adjacent properties um as y'all explained last time makes sense to me and I think covers that concern and I think is in keeping with the spirit of our standard buffering requirements. So I am satisfied. Anybody else have anything different to add or comments or questions? I agree with what said. It seems like a good a good compromise that makes sense for the site and hopefully works within the constraints that y'all have, but also still is trying to keep that heightened standard for the neighboring properties. That's all from me. I think we're there. We go. Anyone?

Sure. I move that the city of Moab planning commission approve planning resolution 8-2026 a planning resolution approving the following buffering and screening special exception request for property 1410 South Highway 191 Moab Utah 4532 western boundary partial exception to screening allowing a 4ft opaque fence along the length of the parking lot. All right, we have a positive motion from Shaye. Is there a second? Second. Second from Steve. Any further discussion? All right. Uh, all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I.

Okay. Motion passes 5. Uh, thank you applicants. Really appreciate your hard work to get this done. Good luck with the project. Thank you much. Thank you. All right. Uh, moving on. Not the same length as our last meeting. Hey, lovely view of Room Village from Miles there. The sun goes down. Nope, never mind. That was just the sky. All right. Oh, and there's Miles's knee. Uh,

now we're upside down. Um, okay. Uh, our discussion item of the evening, uh, 4.1 land use code update discussion once again, but following our homework assignments. Uh, thanks for putting that together. You made it very easy to do. I appreciate that. Um, yeah, Johanna, take it away. Um, Tyler, I'm gonna remove you from the Zoom, but you can keep following along on YouTube. That'd be fine. Thank you.

Okie do. So, thank you uh for filling out the chart that I sent over. We are going to go through some of your responses and then I'm gonna uh culminate those and then try my best to make some uh either definitions. Yes, definitions first. Um definitions of all the big buckets. uh that make sure that all the smaller uses can fit into those definitions. So hopefully next week we'll next week next meeting if I got the time we'll be looking at the definitions of big buckets.

Cool. Okay. So we'll go through Kais first and then just move on down the line. Um, just noting that I I followed the assignment to put things that I think did not fit in the bigger bucket, but I also used green to indicate something else I just wanted to flag. Okay. Too. And I a comment just as we're working through. Absolutely. And I forgot comments. Sorry. No, you didn't do comments. I just There were things I didn't want to lose track of and like tell you in two months that I should have told you now. I made one box orange for that reason.

Oh, see Charlie's smarter than me. No, I was just like I agree. The color coding meant something to me. I was like, okay. Yeah. Um, starting at the top, uh, caretaker residence, caretaker dwelling, which was in there twice, I assume to be the same thing. I dwelling group living to me means group and caretaker is an individual. And I feel like that or could be more of an individual. It's less communal living. It's less bunk houses, assisted living, group home, what have you. Um I think it's very different. It's just a different use. So that to me did not fit in that column.

Yeah. Uh so we don't currently have a caretaker definition but what I am was interpreting caretaker residence to be as there is a group home and here is my section as an employee that's of the group home maybe that's a do we need that to be its own thing somewhere in the code or is that just it's listed right now? Yeah.

Yeah. where this has shown up in other sections of the code. Again, this is we're working through this, so no, you know, there's no hard feelings on missing things or anything, is typically that's been associated with a caretaker in specific uh use parameter language with other uses is proximity to a commercial business that requires somebody basically on-site security. Yes. How it's been used in the past at least. So, professional or self- storage Yep.

facilities can offer a caretaker dwelling that live on site as a residential uh aspect of a commercial use. So at least one or two uses have been used in that way versus kind of a a caregiver versus caretaker. But again that's the synony language these historic language elements they've changed and they don't really line up. So you're like yeah doesn't fit under residential probably it in the first instance it could be like a live work. Yeah, that's the thing. If it's like someone living on site at the self- storage place that to me is residential. Yep. Current with commercial

maybe brought down. So talking about buckets to an accessory you Yeah, I think it's more of an Yeah, I was totally thinking ADU when I Yeah, I was too. Um, just a note, if you see me um, not writing things, say, "Man, she's really not considering what I'm saying." I'm gonna listen back to this. Cool. And do everything. Sounds good. I get it. I can't both think and also type. We'll probably get through it faster if you're not back. Um, yeah. Uh, moving on. Do you want to hear other stuff for that line or do you want to just go person by person? Yeah, whatever you guys would like. Maybe. Yeah,

maybe line by line. That probably that's one conversation. Yeah, better for my listening pleasure. Yeah. So, if I I last week you brought up the definition of the service station and I thought about it all week long. So, I could we put a pin in that? Can we stick with the kind of Okay, cool. Go for it. Go for it.

Cut and dry. I think we need to define what these each are. What is the difference between a boarding house and a lodging house and a caretaker residence? I don't know what that is. So, I can't give good input until I know what those mean. Yeah. So, that's I think that's our problem is that we don't know what they mean. Yeah. Uhhuh. rewriting the land code. I think either of those things could come first, what we're doing now or the definitions. But it sounds like the way that you've chosen to do it is

to kind of maybe I I see the utility in this which is like kind of waiting through the really obvious stuff and then once and kind of kicking things at least sort of where they need to go based on maybe a general understanding and then coming back through probably and making sure after the definitions are because you're going to base the definitions a little bit on what the existing uses are that you're trying to fit in that category. So, it's a little chickeny chicken eggy

and this is riddled with my misunderstandings and my bias right now. So, to to get a larger group and organize will help inform my definitions and then we'll do the same exercise again. Cool. And this spreadsheet is not organized by defined and undefined. It just is uses. But we have other spreadsheets that are defined and undefined. So it's maybe well taken and maybe as we move into the future we can have that where we can see oh this one is clearly defined we know exactly this one we go into oh caretaker you guys we all know we don't we don't know and it doesn't know

um so when we're having these type discussions but for the moment I think we can impromptu I think we have some good reference just in the moment say this one's defined or we can reference like character yep not defined where what bucket do we believe it it exists but no good That makes sense. Um, anything else on the the top couple dwellings, dwelling buckets, group living or two household? Um, my other comment about group living and this is kind of the same to the same point of like not actually being clear on what's what here is to me a bunk house means employee housing. So, I just wasn't sure what else it could be that's group but not employee.

Love that we're in. So there's so much there's no way not to get in the weeds with this. So yeah, bunk house they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Employee housing doesn't a bunk house doesn't have to be employee housing, but a bunk house can be employee housing depending on who the ownership is or the structure. So they don't have to be the residents of a bunk house don't have to be affiliated in any way by family terms nor by employee coordination. It can just be a house a residence that has mult basically multiple u livingings. What do we call this? U doiciles pods. What do you want? Sleeping rooms. Sleeping units. Yes. Thank you. Um

theoretically even just be a fourbedroom house with non-related individuals in any way. So bunk house again is not defined currently in our code. Something that's been commonly used at basically a certain number of bedrooms. you're like, "Okay, clearly this is something different." So, it's undefined. But that's a good distinction is should we be identifying employee uh employee dwellings versus smokeous? I guess unclear for this overall exercise. Are we striving for a level of comprehensiveness that makes repeat entries for different lines necessary or are we trying to eliminate repetitions across different the latter

rows? We're we're trying to right we're trying to consolidate as much as possible. Yeah, I see a world in which um bunk houses for instance can or that's a bad one. Uh employee It's confusing. Employee housing could be um in accessory use when we mean it to mean as a

reuse parameter. You need to have employee housing on the same lot, but then it could also be in multousehold. Um, and then when I we're writing the definition of multi household, I'm going to put in that definition can also be uh employee housing. So that that's lumped in. Um, so I think there can be repeat and then based on the definition, we'll see how and why that's supposed to be used where.

Yeah. Why does it have to be so singulared, you know? Why does it have to get down to that nitty-gritty? Couldn't it be just multi- like Yeah, we have our our building official in the audience, IBC because I've got a few that sort of help Barry everyone. Yes. Hi. I'm the building official for the city of Moab.

Nice to see you. Um, so the in the building code, the difference between a boarding house and a lodging house is kind of the intent of the people. A lodging house is sort of looked at as a a nightly rental or maybe a hostel kind of thing. You come in and you rent a bed for a few days or a bedroom. The boarding house is associated with an organization or or a group. self boarding house could be employee housing maybe or a a church group kind of a thing. There's something that brings all those people together that's outside of it just happens to be a three-day weekend in Mo which then impacts our zoning

which which right do zoning impact it it could be right is that something you want in a residential zone u boarding house could be um like a halfway house kind of a thing rehab center kind of a situation it's a residential building people are there because of some outside situation. Yeah. Not necessarily employee housing, which is why it's separate from employee housing because

and then a bunk house would just be a low class, low inexpensive version of that. A barracks maybe would be a better way that the building code would look at a bunk house. And can we with that and just for this exercise because again our rule book we want it to doesn't have to mirror but should um align in a non-conlicting way with the building code so that we have a good relationship of of our applicants.

So the nature of transient housing given the the option you just talked about. So the transient occupancies can just as an example can you give us why that distinction is even you know like why do we care if they're different things? Well your perspective. Yeah, from from the building code, it's a safety question. If there's a fire at 3:00 in the morning and you're only there for two days, the alarms go off, you don't even know where you are, let alone how to get out the front door. If you're staying there for a longer period of time, you've got familiarity and you're involved in the maintenance of it, too. So, those are kind of the the bigger differences. So with that when we're we're allowing these things because these have been why we know this is we've been through the ringer of insufficient definitions is safety basically one of these definitions why it matters is one person is going to have to have more expensive more complicated safety measures than the other. So we def by defining these differently have the appropriate requirement for improved safety of certain options versus the well could be unnecessary because you're there it's your house is

your house in a in a non-transient type option. So it's impossible to get through this without the weeds but that's the nature of depth of what we're talking about. It's so these are all good examples to hopefully tee us up. we could move we can begin to move a little bit more quickly through but yeah these are all lenses that the the staff is looking at when we talk about these things the definition you gave I don't consider that residential I consider that commercial the right lodging you know if a if a restaurant in town wanted employee housing then but is that the only option for a bunk house

well they will take a with four bedrooms in it certainly turn it into a bunk house. So some some of the question then is because we're going to have this conversation when it comes in is what about a halfway house where they're there for a reason but they're going to be there for three or four months as they recover and change their life. So does that belong as a commercial? I would if it was, you know, four corners had these, you know, halfway houses, I would consider that commercial, not residential. And that's our code considers that resident.

Yeah. And let maybe let's rest on this for a second because again that is a important topic that a lot of the community feels. So it's worth maybe being in this moment to talk to it and we can reference back to this meeting in the future is the community feels that way. We we've had appeals, we've had litigation, we've had a lot of things in residential neighborhoods where there are employee housing. We're getting into a discriminatory zoning territory at that point because you're saying what's happening there is they're living there. It is a residential. They sleep, eat, and care for themselves. They're not actually in a commerce exchange in that point. So, we're just saying the classification of living is less palatable than maybe what we consider traditional residential uh description or character. So, I would actually warn us from getting into that territory of classifying classes of employees as different than anybody else. Uh, and this is how we get into ADA Fair Housing Acts. So, we have to be very careful. But that's the sense of the community of hey, there's this big bunk house that's not residential. that's not what I moved in this neighborhood uh to experience, but we have to be very careful and educate our community as to what fair housing is. Um so this is super important and relevant and it's still ongoing. We have we've had appeals. Uh we're we're on the precipice of another appeal for this very thing. So we're not fully fleshed out as a community on fixing this yet, but that that's important to

Yeah. Thanks for explanation, Barry. Sure. Appreciate it. Um Carolyn, so I noted got that how that's different career dwelling. Um go moving down to row five under dwelling to household you have two single household dwellings. How is this different from two household dwellings?

And maybe it's the same conversation we've been having and we don't need to have Yeah. And I I think we can definitely have these conversations. I do want to make sure we at least get through the very sort of the bigger higher level discussion this evening.

I do have one other kind of higher level question which is you know thinking about the conversations we just had for even the first row. Um, I know one of the goals that we talked about when we were kind of thinking about that overall framework for the code was trying to make it more um, user friendly like for the public and different types of applicants who are looking up different things in the code and thinking about how we are all just like well what's the difference between like a bunk house and a boarding house and an employee housing. I know the definitions will be available, but it'll it seems like another reason why it would behoove us to try to limit, you know, are there 10 drop downs for this one use or are there three, you know, so somebody isn't sitting there scratching their head like which one am I supposed to choose? Or if they read the first one and it seems like a good enough fit, then they won't read the second and third and fourth and figure out which one is like actually a better fit. Like care for residents and on-site employee housing seem like the same.

But you could see how in the code one would be something that seems much bigger and broader and more permissive and one that's very like a specific

specific and small. And I think that probably is the answer to why we do have those distinctions some places because one thing sort of inherently calls to mind like a more intense use and you don't want to basically prohibit out or zone out the sort of smaller version of that where you don't need to. I think it's like same with like there's a big difference between you know someone making tamali's in their kitchen and like a commercial kitchen but both of them are commercial kitchen you know and you don't want to restrict the smaller one sort of in the big net of the bigger one necessarily

or overly permit and then we we're obligated and this is almost the more the more dangerous route is now you're like that's they can do it it's totally permitted they can have 100 employees on that property. Uh so it it it is double-edged sword for sure. Totally. Yep. No, that's that is exactly the the discussion. Um shall we move on to the next line? All right. Um anybody else have anything we haven't covered yet based on those first few few lines? For Johanna's sake, since we're not doing it person by person by by coloration. Yeah.

Can we as we move through the line, can we call on you to recall on your own to let us know? So, we're just gonna go down a master list and like anybody in this line and you call out what your me Yeah. I'm clicking back and forth looking and maybe like call for the

first two rows. I'll say what I heard from you to and then you we can see if I'm hearing correctly. Um, so for group group living, I'm thinking group living and live work could even maybe be combined. And that is um residential uses that don't seem to fit the residential character. Then live work, which is you have units that are on the same uh lot as commercial uh which is what you might think of live work would go down to accessory use because that's always going to be an accessory

assisted living centers. Yeah, I guess or boys and girls schools with correctional institutions or homeless shelters. Do you have people that remains group? Yeah, I think let's I don't think we can combine this. I I think right maybe I think we can with the idea of an accessory use of a residence component, we can probably filter down a lot but probably not totally disuse the idea of group camping and I think from a building side that would line as well. Yeah, I was going to say a live work unit by my definition um would be ground floor is commercial, second floor is residential and the person living there is the one that runs the business.

Yeah, they are tied together and they have different building building requirements of of eased or accessible building construction. Yeah. Fire ratings and things like that. or even like a caretaker cottage that's next to is storage units. Live work in your opinion? No. They're connected. They're the same structure and there's a there's a flow of space between the two. But again, this is where we don't have to have the same definition as long as we're not inherently trying to create conflict, which that wouldn't. So us saying, "No, that's live work." Like no, it isn't. Like that's okay. Yeah,

we can still have that work and it just won't be that for Barry's occasion. I like that conversation actually. Thank you. That helps. Um, moving down to line six, dwelling, live, work. Yep. Uh, I had employee workforce housing, which doesn't necessarily occur on the work site. Um, that to me was a maybe there's just no distinction needed. And then that does put you back up into sort of like the bunk house sort of territory just

indicating that live work employee workforce housing isn't always on site. Um at least especially according to our code like the Wahoo ordinance your employers if you build a hotel you can build an apartment complex or town homes somewhere else to meet that requirement. It doesn't necessarily need to be on site. um just ju just literally just flagging that to make sure we don't get that lost in the prey. But it sounds like that was encapsulated by the the other um discussion. Um let's see anything else on those lines from people yep said duplicate onsite employee housing duplicate.

I was confused by the live work units. It's like felt like it was almost redundant of the bucket itself. Yeah. So these are there's a lot of redundancies because it's just every time that it's mentioned in code, we've got a lot of uh uses with slightly different words. So I've included them all as to not erase one based on my judgment that may have been important somehow. Yeah, that's why there's like caretaker residence and then caretaker dwelling. They're different. Yeah.

Um moving to a dwelling multi household. Uh I just noted individual retail units is in that. What does that mean? Yeah, that was my question. Same in residential. Why is individual retail units in residential rental units? Could Yeah, it could have been maybe a Okay. Yeah, that would make sense.

Individual rental units. Great. Makes sense there. I like it. Uh, and everyone, anyone stop me if I'm moving past something? Uh, going down, it looks like the next thing we have is um Carolyn had noted twin homes. Is this the same as a townhouse? No, they are not. It is not.

They are not the same. Duplex. I only learned this recently in adult sports. Yes, they're very different. They are different things. So, what what is I am going to keep us on track. I think we can say no, they're the same and maybe have that discussion another time because it's been 25 minutes and we've made it three lines. Yep. Sure. Just to make sure that four line. Thank you. I just want to make sure we get through the assignment that Johann. Um but no, they're not the same thing. Well, the comment was more than does townhouse need to be somewhere else if there if it's not the same. Got it. Maybe it's the same as something else. Um,

because town houses are where town houses. They're in there somewhere. Saw them. I didn't see it. That's why I asked, but I might have missed it. No, it's not in our It's represented in our definitions, but not anywhere in our code explicitly. We also don't have a policy or procedure for so making sure that pounds which we need desperately to establish. Yes, we do. Good good catch. So no and then we should make sure they're in there.

All right. Uh awesome. Moving on. Let's see the next thing we had. Uh I think Carolyn someone had large development. Well, I have had mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions and I really have gone back and forth on that whether I think it's because it feels like they could like you have grand oasis to me that's a large development. Yep. You have something that is on the shorter term side to me it's it is commercial. So like that one is hard for me. I like I think

like I think if we use the word subdivision I like it under there. I don't love it if it has the word park which unfortunately under a code is kind of an antiquated moot point that it's not permit. It's not permitted our MHRV1 zone which is Grand Oasis. So we have a single property with a single zone with a single development standard and a second title. Right. it it and this is that's reminiscent of there was a basically the city management at that particular time they were getting rid of it. I think there's a call to action in our community to replace that appropriately in our code. So I think that would be something we

look at but under our yeah current current code and our current districting which may be restricted on this land use update we're not going to be able to change our districts through this. Yeah. Um, so we maybe put a really nice big asterisk of, hey, we want to address that in the general plan update. Yeah, and it seems like Caroline had that flagged as well. Um, to me it does fit closest with the PUB.

Um, there are a lot of manufactured home communities in Moab that have foundations but are still manufactured homes but are a planned unit development and those seem about as close as you can get. And te technically a a legal manufactured home, modular home or any other building type which actually Moab and Barry just went to a conference. Moab is maybe you can speak to this later really ahead of the curve beyond most of the state and we usually pat ourselves in the back but that's a fact right now. Um so this is we permit that. So they just go through a subdivision and then you can put a manufactured home on your lot. Yeah.

By right. So the fact that we're in this old code distinguishing that as something different is antiquated. it's unnecessary to separate them at this time. Could we in the future create a more more incentive based code regulations where you don't have to follow a major subdivision standards development and then you can only put manufactured houses? Maybe that's an option. So basically when we're saying tiny home development, that's the place holder for a mobile home type subdivision.

And I would say a mobile home park has in my experience has generally been the ground is owned by corporation or something and the homes are owned individually. That's definitely different than the PUB kind of concept. There's some similars in the type of construction, but the ownership and the function of it is a little different. It's often all been R4 though in our code in the past. So, and then Yes.

And that's where it's actually technically allowed anywhere a major subdivision is allowed. So it's the yeah it's one of these but so to Barry's point though Royal Crossing that's a great mechanism of well can somebody own the land and then they own the property on top of it being manufactured modular. So if that's a successful mechanism we actually offer it by right without an overlay through a backwoodsy type way. So we'd like it to not be a backwoodsy way. I'd like to celebrate all these types of housing toolbox options. Um that's what I think we're going to have to sort through. But this is good feedback. I think I think I'm good to move on from this one. But does anybody have questions on that? That makes sense. Caroline, does that address here?

Yeah, I don't think I had flagged that one. Oh, it was just good conversation. I was just Yeah, it was yellow in your tab. Anonymous turtle made it yellow. Oh, I might have just turned it anonymous. I was like, I had it flag. I love the Google thing. So funny. Um, okay. Let's go down. It looks like we um under recreation public, the backyard theater is not a public thing. It is a private property and that does not fit there to me. Unless the city decided they wanted to finance one and then it could

totally. But but that kind of thing that would just be like outdoor theater or something. But that specific use. Yeah. Um I just had not public because it is under recreation come of public. Uh same with civic gathering space and I think unless it's like the the mark uh art and photo galleries doesn't fit in that bucket to me. Those are just private businesses same as the auction house. Yeah. Yeah. Although I've never tried gathering at one so maybe it's great. This was a weird question,

but I do think of random things. I do think the civic category is makes sense that they tend to be publicly owned facilities or with some type of public use, public right to the space. Like thinking I'm I'm thinking like the lawyer nonsense, but um to me it's like is this a place that you would have a right to exercise free speech or would you not? And to me that is my like dividing line if it's like a quasi public space

or I'm sorry those no that's where we want to go is when we're talking district which is what this will lead to. Sorry to jump in. That's exactly what we're need needing is we have we have civic but it is municipally owned. Yes. Publicly accessible. Yes. We need a quasi civic space where we highlight or basically carve out opportunities for nonprofits and quasi civic. Yes. Opportunities to have a competitive edge which they don't. So that is exactly. So aren't places of worship usually private too. Yeah. But they're often used. That's what I consider one of those quasi civic

is a quasi like like for example the Episcopal church lets all sorts of different groups like use their space for like okay public meetings and that's where I think the quasi is where you capture museums you capture even libraries hu I mean I don't want to get into particular names here but um they have a really hard time finding place in our community the way their current code is drafted. Yeah. So we have in our community what is to me a clear a clear intended civic district area but it does not the code does nothing to help them develop there. In fact it's actually often contradictory. It just feels like it's a weird

these are quasi commercial. They're not really commercial. They sometimes are. Daycarees are kind of in this realm. Um, I thought there was a little bit of weirdness too between what's currently listed under public recreation versus civic gathering space. Yeah. In terms of being consistent because we have a lot of different types of recreation throughout this list, like indoor wreck, outdoor wreck. And um, yeah, you know, like a community garden I wouldn't say is recreation so much as that like quasi civic type of space. Yeah. And is that how we're differentiating between like a park and a playground too because you like recreate on a playground but you gather in a park but you can do both in a park. So

worth a little bit of tightening up there I think. And while we're in the civic sort of larger heading um this is something I noted and it looks like Caroline had this as well. The dental medical clinic that does not seem to fit under the civic heading just like period. Mhm. Um that's a commercial space. Yeah. Uh or like an office and at the same I don't think a potry herbal remedy store I think I noted this last meeting fits under that heading. I think it's just retail. Um

and the same but we should also add make sure there is like small clinic office spaces like think about like you know like a med spa or something at the beer sheet building. Um, that's an office. It's just a commercial office, whatever. The office is I didn't think about it in that way, but it definitely doesn't belong under civic. Yeah. But I don't think that dental or medical clinic belongs under civic. I think a hospital is different. I think that is a civic space. It is, especially here, it's a it's a nonprofit. It's a public hospital. Um, but from a free speech perspective, yeah, could be, maybe. I don't know. But I mean, but but definitely not like a smaller scale private.

Yeah. No, that's I think it's like the VA clinic. That does not feel like a public space to me. That that still kind of is more that I also wondered if um university should go under school. Yeah, it wasn't there. I I put it on mine. Um, I noted that like for schools, um, I think it should just be like public school, private school because they deal with this all the time. And then you have schools that are post-secondary schools like a trade school or a university.

So that's usually in school realm. That's what they're referred to. So I'm I noted that in mine as well. Yeah, I think we should that's a good point, Jill. I think we should it would be really smart for us to mirror whatever the state like board of education language is. Right. Right.

Unless there's a need to distinguish from like Barry's perspective between a university that is going to have on-site students living there at some point versus like a trade school where you just go to classes during the day. uh it would from my point of view those would be separate buildings and I deal with them individually. So the the dorms or whatever would be an apartment kind of a concept for me.

Um and then the classrooms would be like this space. It would be an office kind of thing. And then a trade school we'd look at as more of an industrial kind of a concept that way. The only time I'd really have heartburn is when we try to combine all three of those into the same space. We can do it, but it just gets hard. Um, that makes sense. Yeah. Whether it's a private school or a public school, I would look at it the same.

All right, moving down to commercial. uh top kennel. I think we don't have it now, but we should add animal shelter. And I think that should be in the same bucket as kennel, which I'd take to be uh that be under civic then. Yeah, you're on to something there. Yeah. Shelter versus like boarding rescue. Yeah. say animal shelter that's municipally owned is different from like an animal rescue like if underdog were to move in city limit for sure have one under civic yeah so we can pull those apart good note

but that we should have that in the code somewhere and that I do think it should be in the same bucket as a kennel which could be indooroutdoor um there's big difference and we've all been through this recently kennel is one of those that it's it's not an so but It's right up there with it. Um, so when we we'll handle kennels with care. Yeah. Um, I didn't realize that, but people have a really strong opinion about kennels. People do. It's very interesting. Um, oh, do we lose Jill? We may have lost Jill. She didn't sound like she was super good.

No, it's okay. I wish I could say like dismiss Jill. Um the the same my only other note on that was that the stable commercial that seems like that can be combined with the a commercial bucket. I can't think of any reason why a a stable might need to be different than like an operation that has farming in in any way on a commercial scale unless it's like just horseing with no other maybe going on. Well, like at the like at the fairgrounds I mean they have I don't know stable.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm a little lost on this one, but I'm thinking like there there are properties in town. They're all county now where people have their private residences have horses on their property. They're known as Royal Agricultural who also will board a horse or two. Um I'm thinking we could probably combine bucket as Oh, go ahead. Sorry, I need to interject. Uh, I think I'm going to probably not combine them, but releabel them as agriculture meaning only planting and you can sell and then agriculture or some other word meaning livestock.

Yeah. Which you're exchanging money for animal husbandry. Husbandry as we're finding out it's already divided in the code that way. So I think there's some good some really wise separation these two things. There are a lot of differences between those uses. But again, yeah, as we have big buckets that are breaking in smaller buckets where we're talking big buckets from a zone perspective, I think we can imagine anyway

it'd be interesting to get input from someone that has agricultural because like we live on an agricultural thing and I can tell you that the owner probably does not differentiate those things. And that's where where if we combine them, you might be because somebody doesn't want livestock in that zone, but they may be okay with them having a a larger agricultural soil production. They're like, "Oh, that's not noise. That's not smelly." They're okay with that, but not the livestock. Yeah. Um, but the only thing I'll add to that is we don't have that many areas that would qualify this, but we are very likely into the future going to be as we're annexing into and want to respect

the original uses of a lot of the county properties. So, while it might not be that seemingly of a big situation for us, I think we want to create a space for that as we annex the properties. Totally. Um, next line. It looks like Carolyn indicated this too. As did just me and Carolyn. I think the heading should just be campgrounds, not RV park. Okay. I think the heading should be campgrounds and that encompasses campgrounds, RV parks, travel trailer park, what what have you.

Potentially future like safe parking area for vehicle dwellers, that kind of stuff. Is there a difference for I'm actually not sure for some of the RV parks in town. I think you can get like a longer lease for the space. is that but there's still they're still zoned commercial and it's still they're still like an overnight accommodation technically I think they still have to pay the um tax too. Yes. Yeah. And that's something that we think makes sense to keep in the new code.

Well that's that will be maybe a toolbox that we discuss of when does that cross over into a housing yeah toolkit option. Yeah. This has been an ongoing discussion for many years. What is most I think easy to pull is the HDO for the county is kind of where they've utilized that. So maybe not tonight, but that's something we can we can see why that should be looked at differently or maybe not. Oh, I meant to put something on indoor recreation, but I was just saying what doesn't belong. Oh, yeah. Technically, we have an indoor golf. I wrote that down, too. if it's still around. They're very busy, are they?

That's what keeps all our golfers. It's true. Would you guys be up for with something like that? There's no way for us to be fully comprehensive to maybe have a including but not limited to and then leaving an interpretative. Yeah. I mean I honestly element just like a it's it's in a retail space you know it's not it didn't take anything special well I get this is where we have great I mean so we have it's like we have like a hatchet throwing place that's just going to be in a but what do we require space so that's I love that because that's where maybe we don't need that

yeah I don't I don't want to distinguish like every possible business that could rent like frontage storeage Does it change based on the recreation like rec required parking spaces? Maybe. And this is where maybe we don't worry about indoor wreck, but we do worry about say what came up couple years ago was indoor gun range came up. We're like how what are we going to do with that thing? Yeah, maybe that is conceivably different than retail. Maybe it's not based off mitigation. Um but we pick out

a few of the I think what do they what do they need to what do they need to be to not just be retail? It's like gun range anywhere retail is permitted gun indoor gun range so long as you mitigate your your nuisance impacts of whatever and safety and so I that idea of no it's just that's the exchange the same way as if it's like a big warehouse I don't care if they're using it for like storage or if there's an indoor skate park it functionally does not matter to you know like that kind of I don't know well done planning commission well I want to make the code more simple. That's it. That you're you're nailing it. You're absolutely nailing it.

I would say with your idea, Ky, of the storage versus the skate park would be the number of people. That was as I was saying it, I was like, this is a bad example, but you get my parking. There's a warehouse for rent. So, when they have to do like a permit, do you I mean, how do we come up with what the occupancy limits are on set things? So like obviously a storage unit you have a whole bunch of individual storage pods where it's like a one encompassing skate park. How do we determine the occupying?

Well occupancies yeah obviously with Barry and based off of what is what is the human experience what is happening there kind of how they define occupancy. So what I've heard the two examples what are we going to do with parking rather than I think manufacturing and manipulating the use to match our parking let's manipulate our parking to say parking can be probably more sophisticated towards occupancy. I agree then we're not have to worry about that and be trying to anyway you guys get it. Cool. if we reverse engineer that situation, which will also help, frankly, with a lot of the exceptions that we end up doing because we have the Yep.

the the walk-in counter where someone's going to go get a scoop of gelato and then walk out, which had the same parking requirements as like a sit down. They have nothing. They don't have And that would actually address that, too. So, Cory's getting excited. You guys are doing great. This is great. Um, all right, moving along. Let's see. We uh Shay hit indoor recreation, outdoor recreation. Uh Carolyn had noted uh this would be just wrong. I was going to Google it and I forgot. Uh it is not subsidized by local government. It is what? The golf course. Our golf course by the city. It's

the land is owned by the city golf course private. It's private. Like the land is owned by the city. that may be evolving, you know, for us. And our attorney was like, "Why are you even worried about?" One of our attorneys like, "Why are you even worried about it?" And the other attorney, it sounds like a joke, but it was real. I was there was like, "We have to worry about it because it's the fastest growing sport in America." I'm like, "I'm logged off to this pickle ball." Yeah, it's definitely whatever they believe it is. Anyway, I think golf course is

different than indoor. I think outdoor clearly has uh a spatial um characteristic that we should consider and group maybe these and so our northern corridor maybe that does have a good opportunity for what we consider outdoor corridor somewhere else outdoor recreation. Um but as far as golf goes maybe we set that aside as kind of an in particular something else all together sensitive subject. I just added ropes of course as well but zipline. We don't need to list every single type of Yeah, it's good for my definition writing. It is

we don't need to break down the columns B through N at all. The more wide, the better informed the definitions can be. So, thank you for adding that. And to me, like ropes course, zipline, potato, potato, same idea. So we have ropes course in our industrial zone. We also have a zip line in our RC. So if we were to say, can those still work together that you could have a zipline in the industrial and the ropes course? Well, that's interesting. Would maybe maybe we're okay with that.

Okay. Um, moving down, Caroline had flagged uh size threshold on eating establishments under restaurant. Yeah, this was more of a general comment about that. It's just my ignorance of stuff in the code, but um there started to be a lot of like size thresholds that were popping up in these different rows. So, I didn't know I don't know if it makes sense to like chat about that or if they're like this is very cut and dry. We don't need a It does the same thing for retail. So, let's do jump off that bridge. want it not cross it but

yeah absolutely. So this is something that we can carry over or leave behind. It's currently in some of our zones they write in the permitted use. It has a a use parameter kind of in the title. Um I'd love to move away but if it's uh pleasing to you guys I guess we could keep it. But uh the title of that should probably be eating establishments and then a use parameter in that specific zone would be less than. But for some reason right now it's in the title. I completely so that's why it's copied and pasted into here. I agree.

Yeah. Like that would there would be two different it could be less than or greater than or if it's greater than it's no longer an eating establishment. It's something else.

In the in the table a couple uh meetings ago, I showed a table from another community where it had like from all directions what's going on. Uh you can also if you have seen the counties it there's rows of the um permitted uses and then on top it's the zones. Um, so the title would be eating establishment and then across the zones you'll see yes, no, permitted, not permitted. And then if you click on your little square that lines up with both, you'll get the use parameters. So it doesn't eating establishment doesn't have to have the same use parameters in each zone.

And that Sorry, I don't know if you guys are seeing it in your head. No, this is good. You're you're explaining it wrong. Yeah. Um yeah, that's where the two less than 2,000 square feet would live. Not that it changes that it's a eating establishment, just in that one zone. That's the use parameter. Did did that that was well for me is really well you articulate that really well. No, me too. Wonderful. The table

with that this is I think a historic mechanism for trying to force small commercial. So it's it's um equivalent to affordable by design which we know at least in the housing world doesn't work. I also believe that doesn't work in the it was it was a uh a valid and worth worthy attempt. I don't believe it's a good tool for us. So what I would like to see is not by size but by other use parameters dictating by zone eating establishments of this character are are appropriate in this zone and eating establishments of this different character maybe is acceptable in this zone. So the way Joan's explained it,

I want to move away from the size being relative, but still maintain that parameters per zone is going to be applicable. And that's how I think the only way we're going to forcefully ball and told forcefully encourage the things we do need as opposed to the things that are highest and best use that people will just throw across every single zone. So neighborhood commercial was a valid attempt but a massive failure under our current Kobes. There's no way to ensure that it is neighborhood and local oriented. It's just tourism of a smaller size.

Um so if we really want to encourage or require local or neighborhood oriented commercial then you're going to have to use a different parameter not just size to get there. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Just the the size thresholds were confusing as I was looking through these different ones. So, I like the idea of moving away from that while still trying to, you know, like keep uses in character with the neighborhood. So, yeah. Yep. Speaking of that, moving through uh next private property food vendors. Caroline, you suggested changing to foodbeverage vendors.

Yeah, this was for that one. And I know there's a difference like I was struggling a little bit with private property food vendors versus mobile food vendors versus the accessory use for drivethru. and they seem like they have the potential to be like a little sloppy between the three of those because it I mean a lot of our food trucks or like coffee trucks are on a lot that has other buildings being used for other stuff. But does that make it an accessory use necessarily even if I think so a mobile building?

Yeah, I might not that we are going to move away from this. We're actually this is a whole another can of worms that we're going to bring back to you as it's Johanna's actually drafted a lot of this code. So it might not be a use category type thing. It's more of a licensing combo that we'll bring to you as a because they're mobile. Because they're mobile. Yeah. And that's a whole other idea of courts, things that aren't trucks at all. They're just farmers market type things. We want to open that up as an option. Yep. But that is a different kind of entirely different subordinance. So I'd like to maybe put a pin in that to come back because there's almost too much to unpack for this discussion.

So then food truck park would be mobile food vendor, not private property food vendor, right? It would be I'm not sure why like the food truck park itself. Yes. Owned by the food truck park is is the land. The trucks have nothing to do with the park. Yeah. Yep. Yep. So then would the trucks be mobile food vendors or would they be accessory? No. All good. Oh, you're right there. That is that is the content. If the food truck park had like an apartment complex on it and then also had a lot where they rented spaces or allowed the food trucks to park, I feel like that would be an accessory use of that property

or mixed use or mixed two uses. But again, yeah, let's let's pull pin on that because it is uh yeah, worthy of its own. And is the park a civic gathering space? No, I would say it's a private property because of the nice misters and everything. Do nice misters make public owner may not love your civic gallery. Very exact public property. Um so and the fro. Yeah. Time and capacitywise what we've gone through today

Yeah. is going to take me a a considerable amount of time to go back. Okay. Rearrange and do the definitions for. So, um, do we want to it'sach approaching a time where I think maybe next meeting we can pick up and then I'll save the definitions um and reorganizing for of this section that we've just gone through for a later date. Um, do you want to finish the commercial or? Yeah, let's finish commercial. But then there's only that much left. Okay. Yeah, maybe. Let's stop.

Let's two and then I was like, it's huge. Yeah, I think there's many rabbit holes in the rest of the commercial sections to let lean into this and I was like, "Ah, we're going to pull the cord to let Johanna like come up for air a little bit and process what we've given her already." Yeah. We worked on this for quite a long time because we got through the first part of our agenda. So, yeah. Better than commission once. Yeah. I think I like to Steve's service stations. I know that's at the very end though.

We will get to them, Corey. I promise we'll get to them. But I do think I actually do think there's a natural break. We've been through basically the restaurant half of commercial. Yeah. The rest is all sorts of other seems disappointed. Sorry. Very happy. Um future agenda items. We've gone through them all with our last meeting. All right. We don't have anything for the future as of right now. That land stuff. Yeah. That being said, oh no,

we um given the capacities, given we're going through budget season, we're going through a a lot of projects where we had to close out this as far as my elements. So beyond this use, the rest of the code that we were working on has taken a major pause unfortunately. So again with my very ambitious timeline, we're about there. I was hoping to be in public process by March. We're at March. We're not going to be there.

Within that back seat though, I'm wanting to kick back into gear. The question I will have that is the next very meaty conversation after this. So maybe we do these in tandem where Johanna's going to take the next meeting and the h first half will be the continuation of this and I haven't talked to Johan about this in a way of far as future agenda items but will be that I really would like to bring to the commission which is the filtering and removal of arbitrary character of the code. So when I've talked a lot about this of the anthquated elements of hey they just threw this in there and the best example is a 12- foot setback. Why

why is there a 12oot setback? And if we can justify it just like we are here that there is a characteristic reason that is justifiable for basically an impact mitigation, we'll maintain it. But if it is truly just they were throwing code parameters out and there's that is to say about 80% of the code has regulatory measures to offset mitigative impacts or mitigate the impacts of those those elements. But there are aspects of the code that are just really hard to justify. Why are we asking those people do it? What I've lovingly called our HOA aspects of the code where we're just we want our city to feel and look this way. Sign code is a great example of this. We just there's no safety. Well, many aspects, but there are some aspects of sign code that are just because we think so. As we go through this code, I would like us because I'm wanting to basically gut all these elements except those that the commission feels no, this really does help define us by character of our community to maintain these albeit arbitrary regulations because in some you know in our code we have words like uh beautifification and stabiliz uh uh what is it property sale or prop property value stabilization. Yeah.

Why is that? What? What do No, that's arbitrary. So part of this setbacks for example, there's a couple mechanisms I'd like to add to our toolkit because as we've talked, we don't have a lot of developable area. So if we're wasting it purely horizontal scapes, we don't we can't afford that. We can't afford it. We don't have the room. So, if we're going to be able to with the blessing of building code, get rid of all this extra fluff, it's going to create more developable opportunities, bigger development envelopes, uh more flexibility for the code. So, that is my next step. But I it's really the area that is the planning commission's biggest role, which is that HOA world. That's everything is is state run or mitigation run. It's going to have particular uh defensible aspects, but the commission, you're the ones who really shape the design of our community through these arbitrary measures. So, height could be one of these things we talk about. Um, so I'm going to come with some of these heavyhitting things of keep it, get rid of it type of an idea.

Yeah, that'll be what I'm bringing. Exciting. in in an effort to hopefully get us back on track, get in the code process because that's going to be the next most argued public engagement horizon is land uses and development standards. Um especially those that don't have a good reason. So that's what I'm bringing hopefully in in two weeks. Is it we get an extra week? Is that on? Yep. 12. Two weeks. Johanna, is it too early to give a teaser for the um city housing subcommittee priorities discussion?

No, you okay. Yeah. Yeah. I thought you were excited to give the teaser. Um, the housing task force is going to be coming to the planning commission and the city council uh with our 2025 things that we've accomplished and 2026 goals. Um, and just a little update from your friendly local housing task force.

Um, and it'll be me. I like it. I like it as the chair of said housing task force. No. Uh Johanna. Um a note on that meeting on the 12th. There's like an 80% chance I will not be at that meeting. Um I will be at my bachelorette party. So no. Okay. We might want to sorry depending on movement. Those aren't action items. So if as long as the homework's being accomplished, we can we can share what your guys' homework contributions might be.

Uh just for the sake of moving it forward, I'd hate to cancel all together the week before though. David weeks next meeting. We may not have quum. Oh, very likely. I will I will definitely actually not be at the one on the 26th either. I will be there. So, um, assuming Jill is back, we we in theory would have more, but these discussions are really meant for the whole body. So, it's, uh, and I can homework. Yeah, homework included. If we're able to get it in advance, the materials to you. Um, maybe we still hold it. We'll put our heads together and I can write up like on the rest of the chart. Okay. For the next meeting if I'm not able to be here.

Yeah. Um, and just email those. Sorry, I didn't schedule it. No, you're good. All right, you're alive. Of the things to be sorry for, that excuse is probably not a bad one. Like, my family is visiting my son and we're going camping. Like, that's my reason. So, could do it the week before or the week after. Either of those. Um, Johanna, do you have any other details about the land use training that's on Tuesday evening besides what you shared in the email or No. Did you I know say say that one more time. The SERA land use training on Tuesday evening.

I believe they've canceled it. That's what I thought you said. I think I saw an update just recently. I don't there was not a lot of explanation here. Yes, that is the update. It's a there's your update. So maybe Well, let me see because I hate to anybody in the community that was wanting to attend if we giving false information. I'm I didn't get the followup email. They were going to have me standing outside the grand center. Yeah. Um, now you can just be wild and free on a Tuesday. Yeah. Todd, let's see.

Well, I hope they reschedule. I sorry I'll try to find it before we're concluding but um well anybody in the community listening do your own homework but uh I I think I had seen it up there but unfortunately unfortunately they canceled it. Bummer. So I well Oh that all right I will adjourn this meeting at 7:33 p.m. Thank you everyone. Thanks Barry for joining us. Um, all right. See y'all in March. So, we're not adjusting March schedule. No. Okay. As of right now. As of right now. No. Cool.