Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey Scott, can you hear us now? Yes, I can hear you. Awesome. Thank you. Okay, we are recording and live. Are you recording? Yes. Okay. So, I'm not I'm used to seeing the little thing up there. So, just wanted to make sure.

Okay. Awesome. Uh, I will call to order this July 10th, 2025 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6:05 p.m. Uh, in chambers this evening, we have city staff Corey Short, Johanna Blanco, Kelsey Garcia, uh, planning commissioners Carolyn Con, Jill Tatton, Miles Loftton, myself, Ka Marinfeld. also have our city council leazison Luke Wjowski um Alexi Lamb and guest Savannah Thomas.

Okay, great. Someone who we will meet for one of the agenda items um in Alexis's office. Uh and it doesn't look like anybody else in chambers this evening. Um first item of business is citizens to be heard. I don't believe we received anything via email or the city's comment portal and there do not appear to be anyone here in chambers for citizens to be heard so we can move forward. Um, next on the agenda is item three, approval of minutes from our June 12th regular meeting. Uh, if anyone's had a chance to look those over if there's amendments or notes, otherwise we can entertain a motion to approve those. was a nice

It was a nice short meeting. Yes.

I'll go ahead and motion to approve our June 12th, 2025 minutes from our regular meeting. Okay. Motion to approve the minutes from Miles. Is there a second? I'll go ahead and second that. All right. A second from Jill. Um, any other notes, discussion, anything? All right. All in favor of approving our minutes from our June 12th, 2025 meeting, please say I. I. I.

Okay. Minutes approved unanimously. Moving right along. Our first discussion item of the evening, which is 4.1, um, a workshop, uh, returning to our discussion on EV readiness ordinances. I would assume this is you, Alexi, and your new colleague who we're excited to meet. Yes.

Could you share the link with me? Just share my screen. Absolutely. Thanks.

Okay. So, today we're coming back to the EV readiness ordinance. Um, and we're going to just go straight to the text. I have three main points of discussion. Um, which are considering individual versus shared parking situations going back to the single family incentive and then a little bit of discussion about the approval review uh, and exception process. Okay. getting in the meeting.

Okay. All right. Um let's start right here. Uh so here um we have the required electrical vehicle charging infrastructure um where is going to apply and the following standards are applying right now to multi household dwellings with three or more units uh regardless of the parking setups. And uh Corey and I had met with our building official Barry and he brought up in particular situations where people are in town home type situations where parking is individual. Um so we can leave it the way it is um as written and people can come through as an exception. uh we can change this so it applies to either more units like five or more or we can change it for a shared versus individual situation. Um but it's a point of discussion and I wanted to know what you thought about it and Corey feel free to jump in with any more context on these.

Sure. While it seems like you're considering maybe I will jump in for a little bit of context is um where we are balancing the what we'll call triggering mechanisms for this approach uh is trying to take into account multiple factors. One being how not just our land use code might affect but also adopted building codes or other types of state state regulations to ensure that it it seems and complies equitably across when these types of things kick in. American Disabilities Act, the ADA provisions, particularly for parking, were a good example of when when those types of provisions are kicking in, it's usually because that is the standard at which there's clearly a common interest in them developing to this additional or higher standard of ADA. That seems consistent with what it is we're trying to approach here. So more recently within the state of Utah and their legislative updates, the uh classification of when particular codes apply in shorthand the international residential code versus international building code, the IRC or IBC typically the IBC being your large scale development, we'll kind of call it that and the IRC being residential style development for the most part is they've actually moved that boundary a little bit. So whereas our municipal code kicks in for a multi- household or an apartment style project is three or more, the state codes actually adjusted that to a four unit town home is actually built under the IRC now instead of the IBC. Major change for them is sprinklers for the most part. But it also does play a factor into when ADA and other requirements kick in or at least not fully compliant ADA units but a percentage of the project going towards ADA um what's the right term here? Um

some of this terminology we're using um starts with a C. It's not readiness but we'll move on. So varying levels capable capable. Thank you so much. So, you may just may not be a fully handicapped bathroom, but you have the grab bars. It's a stark type of a thing.

Anyway, um so what we're looking at here is in this contemplation of where our threshold should kick in giving the more fluid metrics happening outside of us is town homes. Typically, town homes will often have their own garages, private garages, basically constructed from an individual standpoint like a single family house. and oftentimes are even referred to as single family attached. So, should we be considering those type of developments given they're kind of more of a a private intended style dwelling versus what we're trying to capture, which is you're moving into a a dwelling situation that's typically multi- household that you don't have control over. Well, this town home you very much would. You typically have direct ownership in fact. Um, but not to belabor it too much, hopefully you've had time to review at least find the code that we're talking about is I'm almost wondering at this point, this is where we left off. I'm not sure we are concerned about that because again, um, as concerned about pushing the parameter further away, moving that trigger further away, so to speak. I think keeping it directly to the land use code in this instance. So, say somebody comes in and they do a site plan uh approval with planning commission for a 4-unit apartment. This would kick in. If somebody came in with a fourunit town home, what we are contemplating is should it kick in? I'm going to say yeah, it should kick in even then, even if it's individual ownerships, even if there are garages. Um because again to that higher standard, that's where we believe multi- household begins. somebody people will be moving into these and at least as far as this threshold's concerned we're trying to move this needle of with the end goal of emissions across the entire board but this first step seems to me acceptable that was a lot moving really quick again

and we ask these these town homes to get to the point of EV capable or EV ready u this is how we have it written right now is we have 10% EV capable and 10% EV be ready. Okay. To the unit scale ownership, I guess the ownership overlay is we're saying that's irrelevant. It's the standard of construction you're building that and number of units. That's what matters. Not the ownership overlay that can be applied and also removed in theory. We're not using that mechanism. We're using what it is you're built. how many units and what it is you're building is the the

just kind of wondering like what the practical result of this is going to be if we like if we hold firm and I mean of course they can pursue an exception but let's say we hold firm on this we say that four units is going to trigger this mechanism then does that mean one of four units will at least need to be EV capable or EV ready like to to what degree is the practical application of this in the smallest form like if they just barely clear the trigger. What are they going to have to do? Right. So, at at 20% they're going to have to Well, let's let's go to down here. I was trying to find out. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. So, we have 10% EV capable, 10% EV ready for a total of 20. Um, and then we have things with fewer than 10 parking spots are going to provide one. So in a place with four units, they would probably choose to go by units rather than parking spots, which they optionally could have more. So they would have a minimum of one. And it it would be kind of like um any construction where one unit might have a jet tub or four bedrooms or whatever. This would happen to be the unit with a even and it would have to be brought to the standard ready. It's ready. Not installed, just ready. Ready. Okay. Um, and if they have a garage, it's relatively inexpensive. Yeah.

Right. And again, this is new construction. Um, but to your point, I think this was something we also considered of we're kind of on the fence of where this trigger should we make an additional threshold trigger specific to an ownership overlay or just keep it standard to the development. When we're wavering with that, we said we do have this option for an exception route which could profile. Look, we're we're doing it in this way where maybe everything is at a different standard. Can we just do it to the all of the units to the standard instead of this one for ready say planning commission consider those things. So the exception category really I think does help us with where this well what if this or what if that scenario that we can't anticipate necessarily. So that was a very good point that you brought up. All right. I noticed that on the little note thingy you put So, it says dwellings with three or more units, but in your little notes you put five to seven. What What was your reasoning for the five to seven?

Yeah. So, the three that were actually listed, five was matching an ADA uh guideline and then it was matching a site plan guideline at seven. Okay. So those were potential other like destinations if we wanted it to be more units than four or three at this point. Yeah. So I'll jump in if I may. When we're talking land use, we are updating our land use code. Um so with that we're discussing adding additional thresholds of review elements where right now we have basically a level well multi households between three and six are one style of review and seven and more are entirely different.

We believe there's probably more thresholds in there. Where those numbers rest will be a planning commission designation. We we believe if you go six, you probably should be doing more than what the the property with three units is doing and then with seven, you're doing the same thing as a property with 300 units, right? There's there should be a little bit more of a gradient there. So this is contemplating maybe getting ahead of ourselves a little bit but also relying on established code whether it be ADA or should we go from three to seven

where seven really becomes that's when we're talking apartments or big multi household anything below that we kind of consider plexes four plex fiveplex six plex is starting to get like a little bit you know um but that's where relying on the ADF5 was like well maybe this is where again specific specific to this uh national obligation of when a certain threshold kicks in of like this is where it's a common interest. Yeah. Uh comes in. So the three is the bread and butter. Five is ADA. Seven is that's where most of our large scale developments kick in.

Yeah. I think I honestly think having something that's a bit broader, a bit more permissive for this makes sense, at least initially until we see how things are being implemented if we're noticing that most projects are going ahead and and meeting a stricter threshold just because it makes sense. But I feel like ADA requirements, some of our requirements for larger projects are more of a need to have thing. I have that sort of in that bucket. Whereas this is a nice to have, good to have, great future, smart future planning, but not necessarily something that we want to hold on the same level as like ADA accessibility.

So, it's it seems like it having that be kick in maybe at a later point, at least at this point, makes sense to me. Um, and also just trying to again incentivize some denser development to try to not have this be the difference between getting one more unit and not. I don't think it would be when it comes down to it because I think financially it probably still makes the most sense for a developer to have an extra unit even if they have to put an EV ready space in. Um but trying to keep that in mind at least while we're we're writing code.

I think early we had contemplated it's it the projects that are small in number usually the improvement required talking about um possible

transformer improvements those types of things. Usually when the units are so small they're probably built into the environment that they could just plug in. They're not tripping most of the time those transformer improvements for the the power companies. And then the larger improvement, larger buildings, they've got multiple transformers, so they're obviously already doing it. It's that missing middle of the high-end plexes where they're in the middle of like ah we're trying to make an economic development, but we're also being held to higher standards. So that's where that's a great we I think originally had the question. This is where it's hitting into the code. Um so keeping at three, it just it it keeps it uniform to the land use code. The five I think we'd be comfortable with that. M

um it would be unique in that we would have a standard outside of that number seven increase. The seven would be probably the most breadandbut jump to make at this point until we come up with a better gradient which

we would probably reduce to what would be three to three to four units. You follow this standard four or excuse me three to four unit. Yes, that's why I said three, four units according to the IBC. Five to seven is this one. So that's where 88 is kicking in, but maybe not the full kick kaboodleoodle of all these larger apartment buildings. But then maybe at 12 or more is where you're like you're an apartment building now at this higher level of standard. Um so for now I think staff's pretty comfortable with the options. Alex, do you have any? Yeah, I I think the only thing to add is a point that we were talking about earlier, which is we're thinking about uh town home style construction, which could have a garage or not. And if they did have a garage, this is a relatively inexpensive change on a new build. If they did not have a garage, then it could raise the cost significantly running, you know, the conduit and everything out to a spot. So it would vary by how much it cost. Um but on in the individual parking scenario that we were thinking about it would be relatively minor as in hundreds instead of a thousand or more. To me, I almost don't mind leaving the threshold at three if we flesh out more of a discussion about what that exception policy would like, how burdensome that would be and what that would entail

because there's almost a part of me that says it'd be nice to essentially have the right of refusal. Like they can come to us for an exception. And I think finding that line between what we're really trying to hit is shared parking, right? We're trying to hit a a point where it's like if someone is installing shared parking for the units that they're building, we want to make sure that if anyone in any one of those units decides that they want to have an EV, that they have access to a place to charge it. And in a town home scenario where there's likely to be individual owners, like you said, I mean, it's kind of up to the owner if they want to do it. Mhm.

Um, and so I'm kind of wondering, you know, how many units in town, like most of the town homes I see built in town recently are very much not a shared parking situation. Um, and so I wonder how easy it would be for a developer to come forward and say, "Hey, you know, like I would like an exception to this because at my three or four unit threshold, like everyone will have individual parking and whether or not that has anything to do with the ownership, like if each unit has its designated individual parking, that that could be grounds for them to be exempted from the requirement." And there's part of me that says like my decision on this particular part of this is going to be very much affected by our further discussion about what that uh exception process is going to look like and how burdensome that's going to be.

Agreed. I think in that note because we maybe we put a pin in this because there that discussion you're proposing we actually have as well. So we ran this through the attorney's review. He pointed out a number of considerations that would have significantly amended this, but I think through the discussion they were all of his amendments were we we did um were they were considered in the drafting. So it wasn't that oh we we had not considered that we we are understanding that and we're actually deciding to go this different way but maybe we put a pin and circle back to this as it may have the exception applications to the except exceptions discussion. Okay.

It sounds like that's kind of the core of that your question that numbers but no you're you're right on where our our dialogue has been with the attorney. Okay. So we have kind of it could be an exception. Maybe we bump up to seven. Do we want to jump to the exception discussion? Okay. Unless there's anything you feel like we need to hit before then.

I think I think we can go there and then we'll come back to the incentive. So down here we're in the review procedures. Um and essentially we got some comments from the city attorney about how much of this should be uh administrative and we talked about this a little bit uh in our previous discussion here at planning commission. uh so discussing should some things be administrative approvals or should they come to planning commission uh for the way we've been running it with the landscape code and Corey was also in this meeting and what we were discussing is that this is standard with the way we're currently doing things it's similar to our landscape code um and although there are some changes that might whole scale come in when we rewrite code for now it makes sense for them to match and that it seems to be working because there is a certain amount of discretion that could open the city to liability because people might get different kinds of decisions from the planning commission. But there's also a flip side to that of if we hold very tight rules then people are also going to get angry if they're not being able to develop because they don't meet those strict rules. Uh so there's a bit of a decision about whether we want to be more flexible and have it come to planning commission or whether we would want to be stricter. And either way, people might be unhappy with those decisions. Uh what we're currently planning or thinking about and it's a discussion for uh today is to keep it consistent with what we already have because it seems to be working pretty well and people who come to planning commission for exceptions feel heard and also are happy with those decisions. It seems to work for people's situations in the majority of cases. Like to add anything?

Sure. I I think we will. Oh, go. Oh, I was just gonna say I mean, you know me, I like as much objectivity as possible. Um, so the more we can build that in anywhere, the better. I do think like for example, and we'll see this later in the meeting, our landscaping exceptions have gone well and I think made sense. We've tried to be really really consistent, but it is still an exception from what is in the code. And so

having that be like a door we have to open potentially every single time we have a multif family development coming in when it comes to this I would be a little more hesitant about because it's not it's not redevelopment it's like development period and I don't want to I don't want it to feel like we're adding yet another hurdle that someone who's trying to make new housing has to put in frankly um for something that doesn't make sense even though we could see them for a landscaping exception. we could see them for a parking exception like batch bundling those things also you know we certainly don't want to say okay you have to come to this meeting for your parking exception you have to come to this meeting for landscaping and this meeting for EV readiness

sure um if they do but I know you know those projects will happen that have some sort of logistical impediment or something where it doesn't make sense but the more we could have we could come to a number that we're we're 90% comfortable with applying most of the time. I think the the better. So

that's like a duh statement. Every no one disagrees with me here, but I was thinking either that or if there were certain except exceptions that were defined and they could be administrative and then like if they wanted to go outside of the cut list of those then they'd come in front of us. But otherwise, it would be a quick staff decision versus having to take the time to be in one of these meetings. Like, you know, if it's if they could prove in one way or another that like, oh, this is all individual parking, then it would just be like, okay, doesn't apply to you. I think that's more of an exemption than less an exception. Yes. So, you're getting this like, right? And we did Oh, go ahead. No, please.

Oh, I was going to say and we did pull out the the cost exemption last time. um because our discussion led to they would come in for an exception. So I but I do agree with the premise that we don't want to have people almost by default end up here because it does they have to wait for a meeting to happen. They have to fill out the paperwork. There's a fee for the paperwork. All of those things are nice to avoid if we can.

So I think I'll carry you through the the uh the arc of rationale of how we got to it. The first one is that they don't have to come. They just comply with the code. You don't have to come for section. Just comply with the code. So I'm starting with that. So we're starting with that. But of course, thanks. Um, so let's now go down through the arc of rationale. So with our attorney's discussion around this, he was also like, e squishy exceptions, not a fan. Attorneys think alike. So okay, let's start there.

Kind of put ourselves out of what it He did recognize um the how the structure of code is not going to contemplate the number of factors that are going to come up that inevitably will.

And through that he thought well what we should do is really construct this more as a conditional use process which we know we've everywhere else in the code abandoned for good reason is that we'd have to create a criteria of which the commission would be held to to create conditional use of that. Well, then why wouldn't we just built it in as exemptions or as standard code, which we've basically done to the best of our ability within these codes um through exemp through the exemptions particular sections. Anything that we can feasibly contemplate that shouldn't be an exception, it just should be exempt outright or is just bread and butter, we'll put that in the code. So that really totally erases the need for an exceptions process. If you're going to do a conditional use, just put it in one of those two categories to start with. So what we get left with then is a static firm code that does not create flexibility. So in this case, he said, well then somebody could argue you're being totally arbitrary in your decisions, blah blah blah. Okay, that's the case. We've had this running with our landscaping code. to Kai's point, we've been very particular in our findings of fact and our consistency of precedent. So, it takes what I basically said, there's a great, you know, Theodore Roosevelt quote about this, somewhat manipulated, but in this case, it takes a commission that is operating with um appropriate authority for this to work. If you have a commission that is operating out of discretion and with arbitrary and capriccious decisions, we 100% are going to get called on it and take it to court. So these exceptions only work within the discretionary format that we have if we have a a a correctly functioning body that is administrating administrating the code as it is written and also a clear precedent finding the fact of as we evolve our information. Furthermore, as we find as we have with landscaping,

any elements of consistency that like, man, we're just seeing this over and over again and it's clear what the boundaries of that decision are, we can then fold them into an exemptions process or administrative exception.

This is the whole other thing of our attorney is like, well, this is all administrative anyway. Why is the planning commission even approving it? So had considered and this is we're kind of getting away from this particular exceptions process but should this whole thing be administrative in total none of this comes before the planning commission. So he wanted to extract this particular regulation have the DRT the administrative body be the approval authority. Well what that would do is break up well the administrative body approve this piece but planning commission is approving everything else. And this is a discussion we'll maybe have at the end of this is it's very likely in the future all these administrative decisions that you guys are seeing site plans where I have to say sorry guys it meets the code um you have to approve it if you do indeed agree it meets the code he's like why are you even taking that it's my it's my position the planning commission is an important community body to ensure that the staff is doing his job we're you're checking our homework you're a redundant body, but that's an important fixture even in the redundancy. So, I'm still contesting I want to bring it to planet commission, show our work even if it is administrative. Um so again with that being the piece getting back to exceptions making it fully administrative for the exceptions kind of where miles at least for a majority of the the elements that we can forecast being having been in that position particular to if we all remember buffering from way back in the day and when that was an administrative exceptions process we are 100% handcuffed into acquiescing to the developer 100% time so you might as as well just allow it in the first place because we can never deny somebody for an exception without them appealing it. Period. But if it is a body and it's of a discretionary forum, it's not one individual, it's a body of people that have a clear findings of fact that is agreed upon. That's much more hard to

challenge than us being up in the office and like I'm it's a bad argument. I'm going to deny it. They're like, you're just picking on me. I'm taking you to the appeals court. Um so here's the full arc. I think that we've all now gone through this. um thank you for entertaining this, but it's important uh thought process to how we've gotten here is I do think it needs to go before planning commission. I do think you need to be the discretionary agency that has vague exceptions process in that we don't know what you're asking exception for subcost adding cost is like oh it it doesn't pencil for you every person because we've seen that in another option for a independent feasibility analysis of one of our other ordinances that says oh the cost may be too burdensome from you you can ask for exception we've gotten backed into corners there legally that we've granted massive exceptions based off cost which is purely I don't wanna that is their argument I don't want to I don't believe that's a good argument um so removing cost or maybe identifying cost as a factor that should not be applicable within sections may be something we consider but everything outside of that feasibility uh within the site design construction all those elements those are legitimate I think but if if if this is what the community really believes believes in this is an argument we have with landscaping. If the community through council and therefore by commission want to approve this ordinance, but we don't want to have to make people do it, then let's just not do this ordinance. If we're going to create so many loopholes for reasons and people including cost just not do it, then we're not moving the needle and you're just creating a heck of a lot more of work for us to get through a whole arc of process for them just to be like, ah, you just don't have to do it. Um, I may have lost my way on all of the points, but I believe that's the full arc of I I think the way that we've

constructed it's very thoughtful that yes, there are some squishy pieces here, but I think they're very intentionally placed and how that squishy exceptions process would be. So, back to Miles's comment about getting way back where we pinned to the number is I think somebody we say you could if you're going to feel more strongly in your and confident in your exceptions process, keep a lower number. If you're like, I don't like that so much, maybe we increase the number that that may be a way to reduce the number of exceptions for that missing that that hard-hitting middle, so to speak. Um, but I think it would be a totally I could foresee this. Somebody's coming in with a four or fiveplex town home development. They all have private garages. They come to Planning Commission like, "Look, these are private builders. We already even have contracts. Who's going to buy them? It's it's basically private ownership. We want an exemption or an exception to not have to put the one ready in if they choose." Um, you could say it you're you've both submitted your your land disapproval and your planning approval at the same time that we know it's going to be privately owned. We're comfortable with this. It's not shared parking. I guess the important piece that Nathan had here, sorry, I'm sorry it's long-winded. The important piece that Nathan had here is his argument is he's looking from the defensibility standpoint of how we're going to get argued against with um when we deny something. And what my counter to that is if we hit a hard barrier. So all the exceptions for landscaping that we've had so far, imagine that it was a hard barrier. There was no exceptions process. We just picked a number because we thought it was going to be reasonable. Most of those, which is what the case would have been, all the exceptions that we've seen so far, we would have said no, sorry, you can't. The code is the code. Answer is no, your application is denied.

Because a lot of them could not have been built without the exception. um we would have gotten way more challenges at a much higher level that would probably have gone to a place of mobs being mean their land use authority and they would have removed the landscaping ordinance in total which they're already trying to do at the state. Um so we lose the power. So I'd way rather try to work with folks have that exception and have way less fights than the one occasion that we're like guys this is a bogus exception request. The answer is no. Then they want to challenge us. Okay. I believe we've built a legal and defensible option for you guys to say no if you choose to. And usually we'll have a findings fact of like your your presentation did not satisfy our requirements. So I feel confident in our no. We haven't denied one yet. I believe right. I believe we've accepted almost every exception.

We've modified

except for a few that have been modified which I agree is also a good tool that we'll talk about later in one of our other items. they they come in for I was using this because I don't know what term but they come in for a capital X exception and we're like no that doesn't meet the intent doesn't meet the purpose but a lowercase X exception sure that that does meet it and again this is the whole you can take it or leave it so this was something we discussed with the attorney of like well I want criteria of how you guys may have ability to create conditions up there so it's it's not in my opinion you're offering a friendly amendment of we're either going to deny or you could take our friendly amendment for lowercase X which gets your project done but maybe you do have to do some portion of that and then they can say well I can either meet the standards meet lowercase X or not build I think that's plenty of options to the idea of are we limiting people for development I think it's pretty generous if we're going to be so progressive to add initiatives like this if we don't want to make it hard to build don't pass this but if you want to move the needle forward on all these other larger initiatives the community is committed to. Yes, that's what literally we're doing is making development a little bit harder but for really good causes that we believe in in theory. So that's the that's my that's my full arc. Thanks. Uh so that's my piece with this where I think um certainly where we're still looking for direction. There's a few notes. Uh we're looking for direction, but I think that's my bigger overture of I believe in the structure of this ordinance because it's tested. Uh and I feel I can stand up in front of the judge and defend it. Um so now it's how do we feel about the the numbers where we place some of these triggers? Um and there's some other basically the the some of those triggering points. I maybe that's the best way to say it. Lexi had a different term. That's what we would

like advice on, but I'd love to hear commentary or disagreement with that overall structure. This is the community's code, your guys' code by extension. We're just professionals trying to craft it. So, if you're like, Cory, I just don't buy it. I'm not We're not going to be not friends after this. I promise. I mean, there's still time. That's true. What do you guys think?

So are we the exemption exception points that are up for discussion are whether to kind of totally restructure the exception process as it's written here or whether we feel comfortable with it as outlined. Yes, I think the staff recommendation is to keep it in line with other codes and then it is possible to add other types of exemptions in here if we want other things to be exempt or going back to the previous discussion. There's also discussion about the that applicability of how many units um do we think the right number is to start

as and this I think it was great to start with the number of units and then go to this exception because that actually will frame every other condition here if we're feeling as we're setting thresholds or like I it's hard to tell where it is. If you feel confident in your exceptions process, you can feel probably more confident in setting those triggers that if for a what if we we get into kind of this what if um forking of discussion the exceptions create well if once we set a boundary somebody's not five they're six and it's still a struggle well you have that exception process for them to vet why it could still advance. Um, so the number is a good one, but there's also a number of other things we have in here that could play into why the exception process is going to be a factor.

Did you already explore in the kind of initial criterion about, you know, what is the trigger for this standard just adding multi household dwellings with three or more units and shared parking? Was there a conversation with the attorneys about that or Yeah. no to the specifics of that question. Um, in that I don't think Nathan picked up on that and shared parking is more of a a common term I think we we are using. That's not actually a defined

design standard. It's what may happen that what the developer may elect to design into is this more shared common parking because in theory they could build garages all they want and and or designate official spaces. Um, we don't typically see that though. Um, so having that as a particular threshold wasn't really contemplated by the attorney in particular. Um, I'm not sure he had a comment about that. That was more I think Barry is kind of like where this fits in. Yeah, that was a term that or a thing that Barry brought up and I think there to to us there's a clear threshold between like shared and a garage but it could it's as you said kind of a casual use term. So we don't have something that would be defined because there could be there are uh apartment complexes for example that have designated spots um which is shared parking but also designated. So we would just have to create definitions um so people would know like nong garage parking or something.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. If that's even a threshold because it could be garage but it's you know first come first serve even. We don't know what exact structure. And furthermore with the overlay we've seen a number of combinations where there are typically condos and town homes on the same property. The town homes having garages but the condominiums being basically apartment style parking itself as well. Um, so that could be where can we get an exception for the town homes but maybe keep the condominiums and then we can break apart the calc on that so it's less of these type of parking space a special exception. That's right. That's exactly right.

If you had shared parking though and you wanted EV, wouldn't that EV have to meet the ADA compliance? part of me also just thinks about like what kind of burden like again if you're building six 8 10 units you have a lot of burdens already and this isn't significant but you know what kind of burden are we putting on that guy that's building a four unit you know bottom like the the lowest trigger right a four unit set of condos and it's like if you just had to put one 240 amp plug in one garage out of the four, you know, we're talking like a 30 to 50 amp like draw on the breaker. So, like your panel might have to be a little bit bigger, but like 30 to 50 amps is not insane. That's also like a range

or you know, something like that. Like, and the walls are already open, so we're not asking you to do a whole lot of extra work. And generally nowadays, panels end up in the garage anyways. Mhm. Um there's not a lot of other good places to put them. Um I just don't feel like that's asking a whole heck of a lot. And so because you know, again, we're not asking for them to install a charger. And back to what I've said previously on other discussions about this, a 240 amp plug in your garage can be quite useful from a variety of scenarios. Um,

so I think that well put because we're splitting hairs of something that's already potentially approachable, but I like that we're going through this exercise that nobody's concerns are discounted here. We're splitting a hair because we really care about everyone's potential contemplation of make or break. But to your point, it even like is this going to hamper development of especially the kind of units we're all excited about which is like affordable housing and that kind of thing you know and like high density housing like if if it's going to hamper those things but I just just don't think it's a large expense

you know I mean I think we're talking like cops 1 1500 bucks a grand if you're already going to have the electrician there. I mean, that's like that would be a lot. That'd be a long run.

Yeah, I agree. And I think Alexi made a good point earlier, too, about, you know, a four a forlex that we're talking about. If there's one EV ready, then it's just sort of marketed in a different way like the one with the the little hot tub or the slightly fancier stove or whatever might be without causing those dramatic cost increases for developers. Yeah, especially when we think about the burden is either expense or time. I mean, if that expense is so burdensome from them for them, then they can pursue an exception and you know, then they have to deal with the time commitment. But I'm almost more worried about the time commitment. And it's like if complying with the code and not going through any kind of exception or exemption process

is is effectively the quickest and easiest way to do any of this and if it's not particularly financially burdensome then so I guess all that to me means it wouldn't be particularly problematic to leave it at three. You know, if we were asking them to spend an extra 10 grand on their project, I would think we'd want that trigger to be much higher, but we're talking about like probably a few hundred bucks. Yeah. Overall, it's good perspective to have.

Yeah. I think to me the conversation about potentially upping the threshold to five or seven is more splitting hairs than not. and the standardization with the land use code threshold also makes sense I think in this case of the three being the um the multi household kind of designation

might be a good selling point too you know for some people like I have cover this has a lot of cyber trucks out there these days You can plug your welder into it. You know that's work.

Okay. Any other we want to leave the threshold here. think this would be one of those I'm curious what council thinks things too because ultimately we're making a recommendation. Um

well and honestly have we had much like community response? have talked to a couple people that I know about it. But like part of my curiosity with this whole thing kind of goes back to what Corey said, which is is this really something that our community is really interested in? Because if it's not, then like all of this is something that could be tabled for down the road. But you know like the few people most of the people I know in the community still are using gas vehicles and partially because of the lack of charging

partially because of the lack of charging infrastructure but I have not specifically spoken with anyone who has lamented like I would buy an EV if I was able to charge it. Um, I think the people I know who have EVs are stoked on them, wanted them from the get-go and made the charging thing happen.

Um, and I mean, I completely understand the renters's plight and I completely understand wanting to kind of like implement something that would make sure that someone who is a renter in our community would have the option. But I'm just curious what you guys have heard from other people or what the city might have heard from people. I think I think the hard thing is that like pretty consistently across the board, nobody is excited about more requirements or things that they have to spend money on when they're trying to develop or upgrade their property. I I think that's a pretty safe assumption across the board. Um, yes, hundreds of dollars is not that much, but here and there I I certainly understand. Um, but so I do think we have

You don't even own one. Exactly. I think it's like I think somebody saying like, "I don't want an EV car. I'm never going to have an EV car. Why the heck do I have to have this on my property?" It would feel a little put out, I think, by this. But of course, that's all regulation and that's all requirements. That's building requirements in general. So, I think it's just a matter of, you know, is this something that we want to standardize to the point where it's like we all pay taxes for schools, but we don't all have children. You know, it's like the same kind of Well, and to some degree, I think that's why obviously we're not trying to move forward with this in a single family home perspective.

Yeah. If you're building your own house, then you get to decide whether or not you ever think you'll own an EV and whether or not you think you'd use a charging port or just a 240 amp in your garage. But if you're building a multi-unit, yeah, housing for others, then you may not, you know, it's hard to say like, oh, I'm building this, you know, these four apartments and I don't think anyone ever living in them will ever want an EV. It's much harder to say than I won't ever want in our EV. Yeah, I think there's a difference in, you know, what developers want to see in the code in the standards and then what like the community at large would be interested in or not. Yeah,

they're renting. Do they have EV cars? My son has a hybrid Jeep and it just plugs it into a regular outlet. He lives in an old house and they're slower charging when they're out of like I mean they make them but they slower charging out of a 120. Great. You hardly in it. But it doesn't require something special. Yeah. To make it work. No, I think and I think in being clear that that is the distinction that this is not some new burden that's placed on single family home owners or even duplexes or twin homes or

whatever. um for redevelopment or new development that it is specifically to have new developments of not small multif family properties address something that is an emergent need um for both home buyers and some renters being the distinction I think makes sense um and I think that's easy to explain as well and again it's that sort of cost burden thing, you know, making and it is making places more viable, but just, you know, I want us to always have in mind that like I I don't think anyone would be like, "Yes, I'm excited to have something else required when I develop something just period." Um, but that doesn't mean that that's not a reason to do it. So,

do we know what other towns our size I know we discussed a little bit, but do we know what other towns like our kind our size are requiring of of this like are is anybody else requiring this space? It's hard to compare ourselves to other communities of our size. Yeah. Interesting community. I just left Park City this morning and I didn't see EVs everywhere. construction going on up there.

I'm just curious. I might add here before because I'm going to ask you to talk to this is I think when we introduced this uh potential ordinance to begin with that I think Alexi was providing the the findings of fact as to why we're exploring this because I think we have been called to with commitments the city council has made to achieve our uh and this is where I'm going to have Alexi go maybe go into the the rational as to why that I think that has been presented to us and the onset of this and then in tandem where I I think maybe Alexi can brief us while we've already gone through that before. I think rebriefing would be good at this workshop is also what I think our role is both as staff and then also the commission is I believe at a certain level this uh type of conversation is good to explore this. Um but I think both from staff and planning commission we are agents where we've been enlisted to develop an ordinance whether we agree with it or not at the direction of city council. Our job is to develop the best tool possible whether we believe it or not. Commission has a little bit more of well we have a pulse on the community and here's the community's take on how the regulations might work. But whether or not to engage in this I don't think is your guys's call. That's the council's call.

Your call is develop the best tool and then let council decide is this tool satisfying the commitments we've made previously. That makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Um, real quick, what are some other and we've we've discussed this in in past times that we've had a variety of this discussion, but um, what are some other things that like a 30 to 50 35 or 30 to 50 amp like hookup could be used for in a home? Because like I know we've mentioned like for a welder and things like that, but like sure lay lay person, you know, are there. not just going to sit defunct necessarily if someone never ever ever has an EV vehicle.

Yeah, there's series of tools. I mean, like if your washer and dryer was in your garage or if there was a spot for a secondary washer and dryer. I mean, an electric dryer is going to plug into an outlet like that. Um, I'm trying to think of like more household items outside of tools because I can list off a few tools, but not everybody does that kind of thing. But like plenty of people wouldn't mind the option of, you know, being able to move their washer and dryer from the closet in their kitchen into their garage. Um, just like houses are required to have an outlet for a dryer maybe at a certain point. Actually, I don't know. I don't know if that's true or not. You can have a gas,

but it is convenient if you have one dryer. But is there a move to all electric just more fully electric? Are we seeing that in new developments? Especially people who decide to put solar panels on their houses, you'll see more electric equipment inside their house or switch to all electric, especi renewables and are running electric, then you can achieve that goal. Uh but I wouldn't say that that's the majority of cases not like a trend.

I think anecdotally I would confirm that. I think given that we have through DRT coordinate with uh Nbridge Gas formerly Dominion more developments more recently a major resort is going all electric. We've seen other apartments converting to condos that are all electric. So I think it is definitely a trend while I think gas and then particular to what that gas is specifically being used for. Um I think we I would say I've anecdotally seen somewhat of a trend going that way. Yeah. But to how to I think Lexi's point a majority or that's hard to say that because the way develop that development arc works is we're we're filing projects that have been started. Yeah.

More than five years ago or at least a minimum of two. So hard to say, right? I can't control. Thank you.

The colors on this. This is someone else's spreadsheet. So, Sweep puts together um a list of places that have codes. So, this is their spreadsheet. Um and then I think the point Corey made, this is going back to that question about who has these. Um the reason we're doing it is because our city council adopted a goal for emissions reduction. So, that's why we're doing it. We're not doing it because these other places are doing it, but these are other places that are either are or have gone through this process and some of the requirements they have. Um, I could share this in a way that it's more legible, but you get the point. They exist. Um, and this is spreadsheet. It is.

Yeah. A lot of our little Colorado mountain town brethren. Yeah. Yeah. And in this particular I mean, sweep's region is the west. So, this wouldn't show everyone in the country, but it does show Yeah. some smaller towns in Arizona or Colorado who have these. Well, and I I agree with our goal that we're trying to get to a better place of emissions um you know, MOA in general by 2040. I Yeah, I think that's a great goal.

I think that said like keeping you know, you all came to that conclusion for a reason with what's written in the ordinance right now. I don't think like ultimately again it's it's up to council to sort of nitpick at the specifics and us to make sure that it works. It works. So to me the way it stands with three units seems to work and within it's a logical threshold for a reason that matches others like other triggers that we have. Okay, I'll move forward with that. and there were the twin home as someone's ADU on the property which also is a thing that happens too.

Then I'll hit a few of the other minor changes just so you're aware. We did a little definition changing um to try to I think there will be further um structuring of this so it's in a more official version before we go to something like a public hearing. Um, but essentially, uh, we changed some definitions, not to change who's really affected, but to make it clearer how the definitions interact with each other, like that they would build off of each other. And we put an energy, uh, emergency disconnect up here. Um, going down, I want to get to where we have um, we did some refinements on the safety codes, but again, it was just trying to figure out a cleaner way to put them in here. And then here, we talked about this previously, three or six feet. Um, and then I found six feet in a standard like code for us um to use as a reference. So, it seemed to make sense to go with that. And it also could give people a little more room if for some reason that 3 ft makes a difference for them. So, wherever that was mentioned, we switched up to six. And then I think those are they're relatively minor changes. The rest of it we've for the most part discussed. Are there any other points of discussion? Okay. Our plan from here is to take it back to Nathan and try to tidy it up, get it in a better structure. The next time it would come here with your approval would be for a public hearing.

Great. Okay. Thank you. You Thank you. Thank you. Work on this. Yeah.

Writing code is no joke. Lot of work. All right. Thank you again. Um we can move on to our first action item of the evening. Item 5.1, presentation and possible approval of a letter of attistation for the ARCOG annual report. Um, so this is a discussion and a possible uh action. ARCOG of course being rural community opportunity grant. Alexi again. Yep. Hello there. Actually, Savannah, would you mind? Um, you don't have to present.

Come on. Would you like a rolly chair as well or Okay. The reason I invited Savannah up here is Savannah is going to come on and um this is day three. Day three. So I'm presenting on this particular grant, but Savannah will be uh working on grants in the future. So not too many grants require letters of attestation, but uh you also might see her in the future. Nice to have you. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome. And Savannah, what's your last name again? Thomas Orgo. Thomas Orgo. Okay, great.

Okay. Uh, so, um, what I'm going to do here is briefly go through the annual report and the things that were purchased through this grant. So, downtown dispersed parking amenities. This was something that's come to you a couple times before um, for a letter of support. And then last year's progress report. Hopefully this is your last annual report as the money has been expended and we are closing out this grant. Um the timing just didn't line up to have the close before this particular annual report. Okay. So here are some of the things that were funded through this. Uh if you've seen ballards in our dispersed parking area, those were amenities through this grant. landscaping including benches and also shade structure. Uh a lot of things fit into the category of landscaping including plants and mulch and irrigation. So a lot of those things were in part funded through this amenities grant. Can I just say the landscaping looks really good still? I didn't like this season after I was

I was a little worried last year when things went in how things would weather, but everything is still alive. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Things are mostly still alive and they've also the staff have been noting things as they die because we're in a warranty period. So, um, hopefully this will keep things looking good for a little while and make sure that we have survivors in there.

Okay, so the total of grant ward was 590,319 uh dollars and uh we went through some of the things it covered and also that the final reimbursement is uh getting ready to be submitted this summer. So, we're about ready to close this out. Uh we will get into more evaluation of how this was effective. Uh the governor's office of economic opportunity is interested in jobs created and things of those nature. They're a little hard to tie directly to the landscaping and our dispersed parking project, but I have heard from business owners that are in the area that they've seen a little more pedestrian traffic dropping in, things like that. Uh to the extent that we can, we'll try to include more of that in our final report. And um I included this. This is a payment application from the contractor just to highlight the things that were included. This is impossibly small as a presentation. Um but it's a lot of the things that we were mentioning there is just itemized so you can see each one and how much they cost. Uh all these are all of the amenities and then we divided them up between this grant and the match that the city had to do. So what uh we need for you to consider today is uh approving a letter of attestation. Um saying essentially that this is something that we as a community have been involved in and that we approve and that this is um accurate about the project. and we'll submit that for annual report and then uh in the coming month or so, turn in the final report and close out the grant

and pay application number 11 is that spreadsheet with the highlighting that you just showed the invoice. And and technically it wasn't the last pay application, but it was the first one that had all of the amenities paid out. And it so it was the one I was referencing when they were asking like for me to match checks with payments.

Are there any questions? No. Okay. pretty pretty routine. Yeah. Yeah. Do it. Oh, no. I've just been I'm you know I remember writing the letter of support for a bit more of the infrastructure that was there. I think turned things turned out really nicely. I know Richard was a big part of that when he was here. Yep. Um, I think it I think it looks really great and it's it seems to have held up and it just generally feels kind of more pleasant to walk around certain part of downtown right now. So, I'm a fan. I don't care what people like it.

The feedback I've gotten I think started very skeptical, including from me, right? Um but I think it has it has switched to more positive when people uh need to cross the street and the traffic has slowed down so it's more possible to cross streets. Totally. Totally. I think it's it's maybe an acquired taste. Yes. What are the ballards for? Uh the So the lip ballards are just for light. Um and they are darker sky compliant which is cool. Um and then the rest of them are to protect things so people don't hit them. to run into. Those little ones along by the courthouse just like every spot. So if you hold them a little too far forward.

Yeah. Yeah. I think it looks great. So real fan of the benches. Uh we can Yeah. The bench is made of metal. I will say it's not the best thing ever, but they're pretty warm. Yeah. Not The vibe is good. The vibe is good. The shade structures. Yeah, the shade structures. I'm about benches here. The plants. All the places for the sculptures. I really like the water fountain. That's pretty huge. Yeah, it was fun being on the art trails tour last year and how excited

Christy and Stoke were to like have all these new places to put sculptures, too. So, um, okay. Uh so as usual, there's a recommended motion in the packet. Um that would just be to approve the progress report and letter of attestation that I will then sign. Um other options, we could deny it. We could continue it for some reason, but otherwise we could entertain a motion. I'll move that the city of Moab Planning Commission approve the 2025 ARCOG progress report letter of attestation to be signed by the planning commission chair. Okay, we have a motion um to approve the letter from Carolyn. Is there a second? I'll second that.

All right, a second from Miles. Any further discussion? All right. Uh all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. All right. Thank you both. Nice to meet you. Welcome again. Thank you. Thank you all. Yeah. She'll also be working on sustainability. So cool. She'll be back.

Motion passes for zero. That was not clear. All right. move and ride along. Uh our next action item which is something new and different consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 112025. Planning resolution approving the landscaping special exception request for property at 687 and 681 B Lane, Moab, Utah 84532. This is discussion and a possible action on this item. Johanna Take it away. Okay. So, today we have the Bit Lane duplexes landscaping special exception request. This is at 687 and 681 B Lane. Um this is in the R2 zone and up there you can see um it's one big triangle but there are two parcels. It's split in half. Okay. So this is um two parcels and they each have a duplex on it. So this was caught um the need for a landscaping exception was caught in the building permit process. um they submitted their uh submission June 17th and they are looking for an exception to the uh landscaping code that requires at least 70% of the area required in the front yard um to be landscaped.

So here is their current landscaping plan. They have provided us with a basic plan right here. Their um landscaping can be seen in green. They have yet to submit their full landscaping plan. So we don't have too much detail other than the area that they wish to landscape. Um so I'm going to use my mouse a lot right here. Okay. So this area is the front yard. The 15 foot setback is what we consider their front yard. So 70% of this all the way uh from here to here

if I might. Yes. These are actually two separate it's a mirrored application. So we're we're we are looking. So you see that center line that is actually a dividing property line.

Okay. So the exception is actually in form two different permits but as they're mirrored it's the same concept but so yeah as we're looking at the horizontal boundaries we're kind of looking at the site plan in full but really this would apply to two different properties if that makes sense. Okay. Yes. So about um 45% of each property's front yard is currently set to be landscaped. Um again that requirement is 70%. Um but the trade-off that they are look um presenting to us is that this area that's not required to be landscaped um they would be willing to landscape. Okay, here is the narrative submitted by the applicant. um they would like to um or I'm just going to read it. We are requesting a special exe exception to allow the landscaping for the project to be installed as indicated in green on the submitted site plan rather than the standard requirement. Um we're they are attempting to maintain enough parking spaces um in the lot for all residents with the plan as shown. Um we will achieve this goal which will keep the residents from parking on the street by landscaping the area depicted in green. uh they will more than satisfy the landscaping percentage requirement um and achieve the same aesthetic goals.

Okay. And I think if you have any questions for them, I'll have you do that before I go into my um analysis. Let's go back to the plan. Have we introduced?

No, we have not. Um, you and then we can also offer the commission if they want for him to speak even outside of questions, but up to you. Yes, today we have Scott Irvine online with us and if you'd like for him to just give a a spiel, perhaps he'd be willing to do that or if you have any questions, up to you guys. Yeah, sure. It's Scott, that would be great if you want to introduce yourself. Um, anything you'd like to say, information you think is relevant for us to have, go for it. We're happy to have you.

Hi, thank you. I'm Scott Irvine and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Um, yeah. Basically, this is we're just building a duplex on each lot. And by our goal here is to keep the parking off the street. And by having that parking up front, we if we kept to the standard what you want for landscaping, we'd lose two parking spots and that could create some street parking. And so we're just trying to reduce that and make this still aesthetically pleasing by changing the landscaping as we've shown here. Sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my head around. So we don't have the complete landscape plan but we are looking at an exception.

Yes. Um the the area of which will be landscaped. Um so as to not do two plans. They want to get this out of the way beforehand before they tell us specifically where things are going to be. Okay. I think was the object. I do feel like to some degree like on another one of our uh approvals if I remember right there was a discussion about like exactly what the landscaping was going to be specifically was about elm trees and others and we approved it conditionally with the understanding that those elm trees did not count towards the foliage

and understand we're not necessarily discussing foliage here but it would be to some degree helpful to know like what they were doing with the landscape caping like is it just gr because I feel like we've brought that into consideration with other exceptions and well we're open to whatever the landscaping would be. I mean you can actually tell us what you want there. You know we'd like to do more zeroscaping to reduce the water use but we're we're open to that. We have a landscape architect that is working with us on this. May jump in for a sec.

Thank you Scott. Yeah, that actually this all tees up actually really nicely and contemplated in what how I think how we're going to approach this discussion once uh Joanna actually got into analysis proposal is that much like a parking exception

these applicants are coming to you well in advance of really fully executing a lot of the more robust landscaping plans to where could we even get started? This may be you know a bit of a a design killer so to speak if we were to say nope absolutely not. So in that context coming to you early to say could we get an exception how might we approach it that when we come to you for a full plan we haven't invested a bunch of money in the wrong direction. So that's I think the approach that we're had in link tonight but then furthermore as we discussed earlier is this idea of the X's that we talked about in the previous discussion is um where they're I think approaching a concept of what could be applied. the commission could say, "Well, your exception would be not conditionally approved, but contingent and that it is accepted in this way." Kind of what Scott said. What do you want to see? How can we make this work? I think from a more static perspective and sorry for stealing a bit of your your speech is what I think ultimately we're looking at and maybe we can talk to Alexi about this is

ultimately the way yard is defined creates a complexity for us which we will resolve in our title update as so many things will be

um that basically yard is defined from the primary structure forward to the property line well depending on that development that could be a massive amount of area that does not make sense as what we've considered the the limited common of public interest which is the front yard which is really the front setback forward. It's where this regulatory landscape area more or less is traditionally meant to be but under the technical term of yard it's everything forward. So from here the design is symmetrical both horizontally north to south and also east to west where it really doesn't matter. We're dealing with percentages no matter where we measure from. Um, but where it does matter where me we're measuring from is as Joe had stated, we're in this instance because the development envelope, they could move that building all the way to the front and locate the parking in the rear. But that's still the development envelope would require the space for those 18 feet, the two more spaces they want to house it. And this will get into how our recommendation may be framed, but um as I can't annotate necessarily and I'm sorry Scott, you might not see this online uh rarely do this, but so is this is the landscape piece. What they're saying is there could be a piece of development envelope that is hardscape that they're willing to reallocate and develop to the landscaping standard that they wouldn't otherwise need to. So they're kind of the proposal here is more basically an exchange of well this space or this collection percent space could be recouped in the development envelope. So as we move through the building permit, this could more or less become this is a hard

situation but basically restrict and say oh now we got we're actually going to put hardcape here now that we've already got our approval this would become regulatory area tied to this approval and have to be landscape. So this is where the contemplation I think is reasonable for us to accept and maybe I'll wait till Johanna's analysis to talk about how we're recommending this which is not how it was performed in the the agenda summary. It's a little bit more dynamic than that but yeah no do you follow where we're at? Yeah, I'd love to hear that because I think my

sort of big overarching concern is I don't want to replace particularly trees with hardscape or because because I mean our our landscaping ordinance is is for water-wise reasons, but it's also for urban cooling and having hardscape where you could otherwise have growing things uh does not meet that criteria or permeable or some compility issu with runoff. Like if it's not going into permeable material, it's going into the street and into the neighbors properties and

yeah, so I think that's Yeah, I'm curious how we're addressing that. If you want to continue questions that might be answered later or might be a little off base, but I'm curious. Um, one is, so these are both duplexes. We're talking like four dwellings or like because we've got a lot of parking for what would be like,

you know, like I mean that's five parking spaces per and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I like the idea of having people like people having plenty of space to park, but I'm curious why we're shooting for 20 spaces total. And then just to play devil's advocate and that just because I have to ask because theoretically the easiest way to deal with code is to simply comply like why could the buildings not be shifted forward exactly one spot or you know like Yeah, I get what you're saying. You know what I'm saying? So put just a little bit more parking in the back and still comply with the like standard of the parking requirement.

Yeah. One sight constraint that isn't shown here very well is the flood plane in the back. Okay. So there is open space um that is unusable. Um but your other question I'll get to right unusable even for a parking spot. We Scott, maybe you can help us speak to this if we go back to the site plan. Um, as we don't have the the exhibit in front of us, but yeah, to the rear or what would be the north of the property or the right hand side of the screen, if you will, towards the creek.

Yeah, drops down towards the creek. We believe in my understanding is this parking butts right up against uh the flood plane and the creek shown itself is the actual creek. So there's a floodway and then a 100year flood plane, a 500y year flood plane of which they are parking in already, but there's a massive drop off where the gravel ends. Is that that's what we're seeing here?

So you see the two parking on each side on the north that is hardscape pavement. The rest of that is gravel. That is where the slope starts and it's it's available parking that we want to provide, but it's gravel and it does start the slope at that point into the flood plane. Um, and Scott, is the termination of the gravel piece there? Where is the 100-year uh mark in comparison to the gravel approximately based off this this uh site plan? right at the north north end of the gravel.

I think it there's a there's an easement back there kind of show. Sorry visual representation, but yeah, there's a sewer easement back there. Yeah. Okay. I figured it was something like that, but I just also figured I'd ask. And yeah, I'm curious about the number of spaces, too. Seems like a lot. I mean, it's certainly in excess of what our code requires. Yeah, I was going to say.

Yes, absolutely. So, there are um four parking spaces required for each building. Um and if those two parking spaces that are if they were landscaped, they would meet the landscaping code and they would meet the parking requirements. Um, so so Scott and the developers are just going out of their way to provide a little bit more parking for their like they're going through this whole process to see if they can provide a little bit more parking for their the people who are going to either purchase or rent.

Yeah. And maybe Scott, we can have you expound upon this, how the definition of these buildings is uh each so looking at them separately, of course, the north property a duplex, the south property a duplex.

Um but within those duplexes are, and you can take this from here, Scott, but basically operating as workforce housing in that there will be bedroom rental units that have a common kitchen. And I don't want to use this term loosely, but a um what has been referred to in the past and loosely as bunk house style employee housing where there are multiple individual units have a common kitchen. Hence the store well I guess you guys aren't seeing this but number of storage units. So the amenities surrounding what the actual use of the property will be keeps what I would consider the overflow of how maybe another property might be used in this way where there's only the minimum required parking spaces in this case four. Well, if they're being occupied by eight people and those all have individual cars as individual adults that will be spilling onto the public realm into the public rideway. So they're going in an effort to try to reduce impacts in the neighborhood by housing it all on site even though it's above and beyond the requirements.

That is important context to have. Yeah. Because I think otherwise looking at this because I'll be honest, my gut is like if if we are not burdening you with a requirement in order to have this exception, this seems pretty voluntary. And I I like abudding requirements maybe not quite penciling out as a good reason to make an exception. Totally. So

So I might if we can that because that's a perfect tea up and sorry if we can't to Johanna's uh the agenda summary proposed a staff recommendation which was not necessarily in our analysis but it was a it was more or less framed the agenda as a positive recommendation. We're actually going to maybe discuss this in a little bit more dynamic.

Yes. I've got um motion options today and staff is more or less neutral on this. Um so I have a positive, a negative and then a motion with some conditions or amendments. These are absolutely um just examples of what could be. Um, I wouldn't put my um analysis behind either of these. Uh, so earlier it was discussed, well, what are they going to put in their landscaping plan? We could put uh something in our motion about they they can't go for another exception. um if we wanted to make sure that the trees were going to be there,

perhaps that could be um in this. Um, and then also, yeah, feel free to tag on.

I might as well, but I I am actually, and no offense to the applicants, uh, from a and I've done this before with where the commission actually disagreed with me, which was rightfully so. But from a presidential standpoint and from a technical aspect, I believe staff is actually advancing a negative recommendation on this exception in that it is exactly what Kaia said. They are going above the minimum requirements. So their their deviation from standard is elective. They're from a technical standpoint, I think as staff, we'd say they can meet the standards. They are choosing not to. However, upon the nature of what is being proposed, we will I think amend in a way. So, having stated the negative recommendation, amended a way to a neutral recommendation in that from a technical perspective, they can meet the code. So, they from a the essence of the criteria of our exceptions, no, they can meet the code. They're they're choosing not to. There's no hardship upon them other than what they are choosing to place upon themselves. That being said, the approach to which they're trying to and the site constraints given the floodway and I had pulled I wish maybe I I'll share it in the meantime. I have our Google Earth update is showing the flood planes in the rear that they have a large area that is in the back and once you see that the flood wave takes up almost that entirety of that space and then the flood planes 100 year to 500 year are stacked where basically they have nowhere else to go. So if they are to supply the sufficient amount of parking for what the intended use of the property is, they are the development envelope is not big enough. So there's two options which is why we're neutral in this. The commission allows them to encroach into this regulatory area or you don't and they have to choose. Do

they reduce the number of rentable spaces for the intended occupants? Therefore reducing the space is therefore reducing the required parking. Therefore they parking does satisfy. You shrink what your product is and then your product fits or utilize the space that they can from their dwelling perspective and allow that to infringe a little bit with this reallocation of regulatory landscaping space from a horizontal perspective to a little bit more of a penetration into the development envelope. So it's very custom. That's why I think I will go back and say it's neutral from that perspective. Does that make sense from a recommendation standpoint?

One of the most complex recommendations I think we've ever given. But it it's when we had done the parking exception, it was similar to that from a technical piece. We're saying no, but we also recognize the the content of what it is that's being discussed and can happily endorse whatever the commission decides. Yeah. Trying to look at like the current there's quite a few trees on the property now that I assume I believe it's been has it been scraped? I haven't been out there at all. So, um Scott, yeah, you're

you're understand the property there there's not a lot of natural vegetation left. It's prepped for construction. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. Um well because I'm think I mean we have you have the undevelopable area that the butts pack creek I assume all the trees have not been removed up to the creek. Yeah. Down into the flood plane we have not removed anything natural vegetation. There's no sense for us to remove any of that. It's right. Totally. And that definitely serves I think stability. Stability and purposes. They're probably half elm trees, but it's fine.

I can see some Russian olive. You know, there's they're not necessarily desirable, but they do still help cool. They do still help provide, you know, shade for wildlife and and and some structure to that ephemeral waterway going through town. Um, so we can confirm this if it hasn't already from the crossover if the building plan sets to what it is that we're seeing through a building permit to what's in the site plan. So what we're looking at is these are the two properties. Um, and our understanding essentially is that that parking that they have in gravel goes basically right up to this section which into the floodway. Even to Caroline's point, even parking if they were to clear those trees is is regulated by FEMA and and qua quasi um prohibited and that you'd have to go through the Army Corps of Engineers to stream alteration system. So, it's not impossible, but it staying out of the floodway both I think from the developers perspective and then the cities is

preferable. Yes. So this is their envelope indeed. Um so they've basically maximized their envelope to the best their ability to the compliance that they can. Um but it's still not a sufficient envelope to have the number of units supported by the parking that they proposed. But now remember we only are required for parking per unit. you know, we're just trying to help out that situation.

Oh, no. We we understand that certainly. Um it's just a matter of we're having, you know, the one the one thing maybe butt up against the other thing that is also desirable and beneficial for the local community is not just having this like massive heat island put on the neighborhood either. The same way that maybe more cars parking on the street might be a downside. I think having this like roasty toasty large parking lot um where there used to be trees I think is something that is also a consider and that's what the landscaping ordinance like tries to uh contemplate too. So, just talking through that and having it be something new where where a lot of our exceptions we've talked about in the past have been uh like you said a feasibility thing less a voluntary thing on the part of the applicant. So, a little bit new.

This is unique. Yeah, this is unique for sure. Or if they've been voluntary, it has been about like the the species of a tree that they wanted to maintain. Yeah, totally.

Which is a slightly different deal. I do respect the fact that like what you're trying to do for the neighborhood and you know like adding in those like going to this I mean I know it's an extra expense to pour a couple more parking spaces. It's you know an extra effort to be here today. Um so I I definitely respect that. And the thing that I'm most leerary about here, which could be covered in uh the amended motion, is like a lot of these exceptions that we've made, we have been able to see the entire picture when we've made the final exception. And while I'd be I mean, I don't know how everyone else would feel, but I personally might feel comfortable saying like, "Yeah, we feel pretty good about you know, an exchange of some of the space in the front yard." so to speak, for some of the space in the sideyard. I wouldn't want it to be a full approval of their landscaping ordinance until we were certain of what they were moving forward with otherwise.

Um, yeah, but I also understand that they need some certainty before proceeding with aspects of the project. Yeah. Well, that's Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Those are the balances. Uh, and that could be and this I was waiting for this if I might jump in. Um, I think an obvious idea talking about this exchange piece, right? This this piece development envelope that they're committing in some way restricting to landscaping would I think without kind of more obviously have to comply with the landscape the general landscaping standards. Y

that may be a condition that you you into a amended type motion and then also a potential either mandate or recommended scope of what you would additionally like to see within that because they would have to meet if we're we're um arcing it. So the penetration into the development envelope becomes a part of our landscaping space has to meet the base level landscape standards. for the instance it could be all gravel plus the addition of the 10% plant material. What I might say is okay that's how we'll calculate. What the plan commission might also say is you're providing a street tree on the north and a a street tree on the south right ofway trees. We'd also like you to see a canopy tree placed.

Well, that's kind of where I was at is like so you can say we're going to guide you and I think that's what Scott's even saying. We look, we'd be open to guidance to tell us what you want us to put in that place that actually works. Um, this is what we recently had communication with our attorney about when it comes to the EV standards um where he's like it's too conditional. It's weird. So this is where you would grant the exception in this case because it is a fully discretionary option and then Scott or and the the applicants can choose to accept that or don't. This is the the big X little X discussion of

you're proposing this. we would deny your uh proposal that doesn't include some standards. But if you would rewrite your exception request to include compliance with these things, we'll grant lowercase X. Um and then they have the option to proceed with the motion of we'd only accept capital X or um you guys deny. Does that make sense? Yeah. So I I do think we have the authority to create an ex an exception approval that has particular elements included in it that they can choose to accept or not accept. But it is ultimately like a tit kind of thing.

That's is because again this is a discretionary exception. They can just comply or don't comply. But I think like Scott's point is we're trying to help. We could easily like Miles said it's expensive. We could get rid of that parking and be the cheaper for it and put in some gravel. But what they're trying to do and that's why again this neutral piece from staff is like we see the bigger picture but also from a presidential standpoint to the technical criteria we're going to be negativene neutral.

Yeah. I think it's important to understand the bigger picture. Like when I first saw this coming forward my knee-jerk reaction was we're not requiring them to have this many parking spaces so why would we let them get away with an exception for the landscaping ordinance? Um but with the understanding that that this is in the way this property is going to be used. Um important context. Yeah. Like that was that was really important context for me to understand because that makes this more of a consideration. Um and part of me thinks like how many trees would they need along that frontage if they were to do the full 70%. Three. So they need three total and they're providing us with two.

Yeah, that's my that is my question is looking at the matrix. What's up with that too? Yes. So, it is two different lots and it's 60 feet per lot. Yep. So, with the requirement of 40 feet I mean one tree per 40 feet. Um I believe that's two trees per lot. I don't want to put you on the spot. Um, but I think that that's the case because it would be three if we were looking at both the whole

if that was their individual lots. So theoretically treated as individual lots, they would have to have four shade trees along their frontage total treated as individual lots. No, it would be two. If they're treated as well, Lexi, do you have any? My brain's getting a little 60 foot frontage. How many trees? If it's actually 60, then we would round up because it would be 40. Yeah. If it was 59, we would not. It says 55 feet from the matrix.

Yeah, it may be. So what the what the the code matrix that's included in the packet says is that what it cites to is a minimum of one tree for every 40 linear feet of street frontage is required in the right of way or adjacent to the private street except is outlined in this section and and what's noted is that there's a 55 foot frontage for each lot. So that would be three required which I don't understand unless they're combined as one. Yeah, that's that's correct. It's the two and two. So total of four street trees they're proposing one it appears in this landscape. Yeah.

So we're looking dynamically again you don't have a full picture yet. We're just looking at can they even have what we're I believe the exception for right now is just the landscaping ratio the landscaping heart ratio. So we haven't even assessed what is your vegetation. Are there other exceptions that may need which calls into the question do we have a complete picture or not? So it is very dynamic, but do they go down and and they may not need a landscape architect, but somebody to produce the landscaping detailed plans uh if the ratio was even going to be rejected. Well, and that's what I'm getting hung up on. It's like, okay, so we're lessening the ratio and then also they're only having two trees proposed out of four. Confused.

Yeah. So right now we're we would in my understanding is just accept the ratio. Yeah. So if they came in with their actual plan and could not fit those two trees or in some form which with their landscaping abudding I think that they could get the appropriate ratio both on the frontage and then if the land the commission were saying hey in this other reallocated area so basically each I'm not putting words into your guys' mouths but

they would have two street trees for the north property and one potentially requested or mandated shade tree that's a part of the landscape canopy of the penetrating development area. So, six trees in total for both properties. That's what I'm getting at. But right now, the exception is only for the ratio. We do not have a landscaping plan for you to accept right now. So, that's just additive stuff that you

So, it's very possible if they get the ratio figured out, they can meet all the other standards. We just don't know yet. This was just a rough representation. Mostly in my head it was like if we're going to allow them a reduced ratio on the frontage like asking for whatever would have existed in that space to be implemented elsewhere so that we still have these shade trees we resist the whole heat island thing and everybody kind of gets what they want. Yes. Feels somewhat reasonable.

Yeah. And there was a slide that you had up that so we are we would be giving 30ome% of what would otherwise be required. Were there any gets that were inherent in that? Again, there was a slide you had that had some text about 36 feet or something like that. Yes, that is the distance. Can you pull it up, please?

Thank you. That's the distance uh from the required um yard to the building that they are offering the landscape.

I I I think I'm confused. What does plans to landscape an additional 36 feet mean? That's they plan to do this if given the exception of the park. I apologize. Can we can we put this in the context of what it would be under the code? Yes. Under the then what maybe in addition they're proposing in so sorry yeah yeah see um so from this point forward to the rightway y is the setback. Got it.

This is what we're considering the front yard. So right now this ratio of green sidewalk hard surfacing to landscape y is actually inverted basically. Okay. So they have close to 70% hardcape because they've got like 36% or 34% uh landscape. So it's it's basically flipped. So if they were to remove this, but they maintain this access, this is all landscaped, this is driveway, which if you were just to get rid of that, that's sort of seems like standard single household lot, right? Mhm.

But because their development envelope, they're actually needing to increase their parking, their development envelope into the setback. So that what we're losing is this space and a half being landscaped. What they're saying is we'll take this space that otherwise could be hardcaped and make it the landscape. That's what I was follow. So these trees, they could easily or potentially the idea have another street tree here, another street sheet here for total four which would satisfy the requirement and also the commission say

preferably in this landscape area it isn't just gravel it is at least meeting landscaping standards plus a shade can tree if that's what you chose or some directing how that and that makes a lot of sense to me it's not an overall loss of landscaped area on the property no it's just a relocation thank you that's what I was trying to get at was like we're not it's the frontage. That is not the applicants request. That is like our hey, here's a way that we could make this work. The applicants are just saying, can we just not? Although that's not terribly untrue. Scott did say we we would landscape this spot,

but that's not the way the the code exception would read. So that's his um already proposed medium X, if you will. It's not a hard exception from the ratio. It is a Is there a way we could just put that numerically? because I I don't much care where on the lot that landscaping ends up. I'm I'm literally concerned that X square footage of X square footage of the entire lot remains landscaped area. Doesn't matter if it's on the frontage or the sides or in the middle if there's like a aviary in the middle of the building or something. I think um that certainly if that's the position of the

because I would my position would be like you have because of how because of how we have our percentages in the code broken up where there's the street frontage component where there's the rest of the property component. I just want it all to add up to 100% of what that would require at the end of the day. Um, right. Regardless of where it is. So, exactly. It's supposed to be 70% right of the front yard of the frontage, but the overall property it's 45 on the front

doesn't and so that's where we're basically allowing the front yard to penetrate in. That's all we're doing basically the front the side. Why I believe what's proposed by Scott is actually I think could work for the commission if you chose to go this way is that it is still potentially offering to the effect that what the yards are meant to be which in our code while I don't agree with it is meant to preserve the beautifification of the city and all this soft squishy language about the you know uh uh maintain stability of housing values those types of weird I don't that I don't like it here but it's in our general plan and in our code.

But what that does is it keeps that landscaping attached to the the common Yes. frontage appearance versus if we put it in the look back. Well, that's great for the but it's not achieving the intent of the art. Pretty for Yeah. That's that's literally my concern is overall percentage of landscape area on the entire developable box. X equals X.

X equals X. As long as X equals X or if X equals more, that's awesome. Um I the street trees important. I think that is for a reason that is that is pro that is using private property easements and setbacks to help provide shade to the the right of way which is an important use of the code too. So I don't want to that actually matters proximity wise where that's located but that seems like that's not a difficult thing for this to accomplish even with the what the requirement is. But if we're if you're, you know, if it's a question of your your nice garden running along the street versus it being turned and running perpendicular to the street, I genuinely don't care as long as it's there. So that's where I'm at.

Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement of the fact that like what we're looking for from this landscape ordinance like the the heart of it is some amount of water sustainability and some amount of like heat island prevention. And by and that was why my only concern was how many trees are would have had to be installed on the frontage and making sure that same number of trees ends up on the front part of the property whether or not it falls within what we are defining as the frontage doesn't really bother me. Okay. Yeah. like especially in going back to what I said like he's going out of his way to provide enough parking to make things a little bit easier on the neighborhood and provided we're still

white road provided we're still keeping the spirit of the landscaping ordinance y Scott thank you for sort of bearing with us as we work through this, you know, you're sort of the test case um for this particular scenario. So we appreciate your patience and willingness to answer questions. Um do you think we are adequately holding the applicant to the things we have discussed with things as written or we would like to do something a little different as far as what we would like to offer as the exception or I let's see here um

go ahead Johanna

yeah I'm gonna bring us back to what the code says in the third bullet here. Um I think an exception to this language still makes sense um because this only addresses the that it has to be in the front yard. So if our only concern is it yeah it might read a positive recommendation might read as a um exception to the 70% or the front yard portion of this language because we are I believe that the language just says the proposed exception I'm I'm just asking if we need to add language.

Yeah. If we need to counter counter offer our own I believe you do. Okay. Um the reason being you just grant a straight exception to the ratio. It does not contemplate the reallocation. So, what you may do is provide a motion that we approve the exception to the front yard ratio with the I'm so used to saying condition. So, maybe just for this moment, we'll say the condition provided that provided that. Thank you. Provided that the ratio is recaptured within the development envelope. Yeah.

So, that's your X equals X. that and then that portion of restricted property comply with the landscaping standards consistently with the front yard. This is where I might pause in that and allow the commission if you would like to see a particular element tree for example in that space this is where you would have to do that. um that then when they do proide pro provide their landscaping plans, they'll do the street trees, which they can do without your help. It's they can do that. It's only if you need uh you're going to conditionally mandate what is happening in that reallocated space further than what just general compliance might be. So you might say general compliance fine, doesn't matter to me. You might say it would really be beneficial to see a particular type of element there and that's what we're going to conditionally pay and then Scott may um negotiate with you at that point which makes the most sense for the development.

So general apartments that would still apply the forestry trees would still apply regardless if we do or do not grant this exception. It has no bearing on it's all about percentage of the frontage area, not what's contained there. And it doesn't somehow knock down the other requirements. Correct. For the street area. So, I'm comfortable not including language about the trees. That's still there. If they wanted two trees on the frontage, that would be they'd have to come back. They have to come back to make that exception.

So, I'm fine with that not being included. I I don't much care to talk about specific elements. I'm more concerned about the overall percentage of of landscaped areas. Maybe just with the note that like zeroscape is great, but man, it's nice to see hardy native plants and that would be cool if that was more of a priority over gravel. By percentage, they may very well be. Yeah. Um aesthetically, I'm sure they're going to want their project to feel and look not just be a sea of gravel. Yeah. which it it can't be to at least a 10% green excuse me 25 thank you

so I think saying the exception granted provided that the reduced percentage of the area within a required front or sideyard adjacent to a street be shifted elsewhere within the development portfolio I would say in front of like in between the build envelope and the street Yes. Yes. And maybe even reference the proposed plan because they do that. Yep. Which picture is worth a thousand words, but I think yes to that language in combination with the reference to the proposed site. Any any thoughts? Any input?

No, I agree with last couple comments on the spot Ka made and Miles made. Um, I also don't want to, you know, haggle over specifying details in a motion as long as we're maintaining the overall ratios and not overall sacrificing plants to pavement, which we wouldn't be doing. Yeah,

and I also agree that it's great to see, you know, such intentional effort made to accommodate a housing type that our community really needs to employ housing, bunk house housing, especially with the constraints of this particular property with the flood plane. So, it's all very creative. Scott expressed his interest in, you know, complying with the landscaping ordinance just in the shifted capacity. So, yeah. Yeah, no concerns from me as long as these pieces are specified in the provided that um clause. I think that's great. Want to make a motion? Oh, give it give it a try.

Um let's see if I can do this. You may toggle to the the motions recommendation page and I was going to say because this will no longer will this be planning resolution 11 2025 still. Uhhuh. Okay. Yeah. Even though we're kind of taking some of the motion and some of it. Well, what I might do at this in this point is you guys may make a motion maybe before you do is check in with Scott of how does is this acceptable? Yeah. uh because you can make it and then you can approve it however you wish that it could be intact and then that after the fact they can decide whether this works for them. Here

obviously it's on what's what's shown right now for sort of the preemptive plans for the property. Um, are you sort of I would I would ask like committed enough to what has been illustrated in the in the site sketch to us that we've been discussing here to that being feasible that this would be something that if we were basically to make a motion that would kind of hold you to that um for for lack of a better way of describing it. Um, yeah, I'd have to Okay,

I I'd have to weigh out the difference between what your motion's going to be and whether or not we just lose the two parking spot spaces and comply with the current code. That's that's what I'd have to weigh out is all. Yeah. And you could of course still do that even if we approved this motion. you could always

have less parking if you decided midway through the project that you know you're only held to the requirements basically. So, um, but but it would essentially be I think what at least according to what we have in the packet and the the sort of aerial sketch, it it would be that it's it's granting the percentage exception on the front in order to provide for the parking spaces where you have planned, but then more solidifying the rest of the green space that's sketched out there. Um, yeah, we've had a lot of discussion, but basically we've worked through the formula in the process to defend the findings of why we're going to make this exception. Yeah. But it's basically what the applicant's proposing.

That's basically what you wanted. It's basically the proposal. So, give give or take. It's pretty much what you wanted. Yeah. So, and we'd like to go with this and so if in compliance works out for us, we'd love to go that way. So, cool. Cool. No, and we appreciate again really grateful for your kind of being here through all the back and forth and us trying to wrap our heads around it. So, thank you. Um, that said, I think maybe entertaining, but it would not be we would not be

I I mean, I don't know. I could see it being either we are approving the special request or we are granting a special we are granting an exception but not necessarily this exception. Correct. I don't know which one of those is better suited the numbers associated with it was appropriate because we're not granting this exception we're granting an exception. This is yeah this is where um a typically we usually come with pre-baked conditions where it's already built in but what we will do both uh with Eve and also with the resolution itself is amend it with the conditions in which you're I keep saying conditions

but yes the conditions in which you're approving this the language provided that will be sufficient in this motion. Yes. Can we still call it planning resolution 1125? What we would do is redirectly amend that draft resolution, hence the draft to include the provided as the way you will speak it. Got it. Thank you. All right. Well, let's see how straightforward and not fumbling I can make this then. Um, so I would like to forward a positive.

It is your approval. You I move to approve. No, I would I I would I move to make or to approve the city of Moab planning resolution number 11-2025. A planning resolution approving the landscaping special exemption request for property at 687 and 681 Bidd Lane, Moab, Utah 84532. Provided that the landscaping that percentage that is not being provided in the frontage will be reallocated to the space in between the building envelope and the frontage as designated in green on the site plan provided.

Very nice. Nicely done. Great motion from Miles. Thank you. Uh is there a second? I'll go ahead and second that. All right. A second from Jill. Any clarifications or further discussion on that? I think that captures I think our discussion has been pretty clear. Yeah, we got there eventually. It's it's bumpy and fumbly, but I think it's it's no and I don't think I don't think anything you said could be mis could be misconstrued. So, I think that covers it. Um, that said, all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. I. All right. Thank you, Scott. really appreciate your time.

Good luck. Good luck with the project. That was a tough motion. That was Miles is our sacrificial lamb for those. So, everybody needs one as well. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Thank you. All right. Nice job, everyone. I was having some trouble wrapping my head around that for some reason. Well, it was nice when we finally got that background on. Oh, there's the drop off. Oh, there's the Okay, the math was not massing. Made a lot more sense. Um, boards. Awesome. Future agenda items. Next.

Well, depending on how quickly Nathan works, uh, the most up the most, uh, quick thing that we may have is the public hearing for the EV readiness. Um, not too much else in the pipeline other than if you recall the National Ability Centers that just got annexed in, there was supposed to be a parallel process with that uh changing the zones of those. Um, but we'll need to be going through that process with those properties soon. Okay. Shortage response might come back now that this one

Oh, yeah. Oh, water shortage might be back. Potential discussion item possibly workshop. Yes, I think what you've seen is what we're we're posing these as discussions to get a a sense of feel. It's really the workshop really have a provided structure that is kind of prefal as we go into public hearing feeling very secure about all the fighting. So, uh we'll probably approach it in that same same structure establish that record. Yep. Um, I think those are the only two items really imminent. Um, you never know what may pop up in the meantime. Uh, that being said, our next meeting was scheduled on the 24th, which is a state holiday.

I'm not sure how that coordinates within our uh city holiday structure, but regardless whether we are here or not, it may you may have your lives where you're not here on the 24th. Uh so maybe we get a sense now of whether we want to just move our next meet the next meeting being cancelled move it to the first meeting of August being our next meeting. Oh okay. We're closed. We are closed. Yeah. There's sign on the front door I saw coming in. Oh okay. Well then maybe that makes it a little easier from a staff perspective but so is that acceptable? I think acceptable. Okay. I think EV readiness there's no push. NAC it's not really pushed. They they can do this concurrently with all the other things they have going. So, I'm not stressed about pushing to August. Pardon?

August 14th, I believe that's correct. No. Is that right? That's the second to last. That is the second is the way the calendar falls. That is the second. That is 14th. Yeah, because the first is on a Friday. 14th is the second one. That's literally as late as it could be. Yeah, it's pushed out really far. That's what's on our schedule as well. Okay. Yep. Um, I will uh not be at that meeting. Okay. Oh, but we did not have

could have been there on the 24th, but I'll see you guys. Oh, I I think in that in light of that uh shifting potential participation in quorum, we did have uh Shaye Bryant, our new appointed planning commissioner that was going to come tonight, wasn't going to be able to get paperwork in time, so was just going to watch, but then also couldn't get there for other objectives. So, we're going to have our training with her next week and then we'll have her full up and ready. Shaylee is great. I'm excited she's joining the planning commission. Uh she's on the board at MWalt with me. Has been excellent. provides a great perspective. So, I'm thrilled that we have a full commission as well.

So, the only um Oh gosh, there's two things. So, depending on what it is, I may be unavailable on the 14th of August. Hopefully not. I have plans for a month. I am available like the week before. We could also schedule something special if we had the week before like Yeah, the week before. We'll see what the pressures are. And yeah, Kelsey might also be occupied. Um, this thing there. It's hunting season. Oh, okay. We live in a rural community after all. It's valid. I get it. I get it. It's August. It's like the almost the last Yeah.

day. Yeah. Uh or Never mind. Never mind. Uh anyway, everybody has good reasons. So, not a commentary of items, but just wanted to complement the commission, right? Very well, very, you know, three very kind of complex items and really probably some of the best discussion we've had. I know I spoke a lot through that, but your observation of how to work through that and giving leadership through that, what we're providing to you, I'm very impressed and just thank you for being such good staff to lead us through the wilderness. So, thank you. You're always wondering us. It's already late, but I have one Oh, quote that I mentioned earlier. I was like, I might as well read it. The Teddy Rose.

It is. So, if everyone wants the ground, we can also quit the meeting. No, no, no. The public needs to hear this. And there's some commentary that has obviously this has aged a bit, but um

self-governance is the best of all governance, but it is also the most difficult. Only a very advanced people or people of sound intelligence and above all the bust character is fit to govern itself. No gift of popular popular institutions will avail if the people who receive them do not possess certain great and masterful qualities and above all a combination of two qualities individual self-reliance and the power of combining for the common good. Above all there must be in the people the power of self-control. That is what I was referring to when I talk about this commission. You guys operate in a way that you go above your individual perspectives to understand and honor the role that you have. That is not common in some of these governments where individual politics, individually tend to influence and override. So I think about this all the time when I talk about our commission and I just have to compliment you again. So that quote came to mind earlier and really appreciate guys.

Does that mean we get to go to the Christmas party this year? I suppose I don't know why you wouldn't that was that's incredibly I'm far too pregnant to hear things like that and not get a little teiered up. So thank you. Awesome. No, I I echo that too. This is a pleasure. there is I have absolutely no intent of not being on the planning commission despite life things coming up because it is such a wonderful place to be. So thank you guys and all of you genuinely we have the best staff. We're so grateful. Um, okay.