Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. I will call to order this Thursday, January 8th, 2026 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6:11 p.m. Um, apologies uh for a little bit of a late start. Um, I was running late and then we're having some technical stuff to figure out as usual. Um, in attendance tonight we have planning commissioners Jill Tatton, Carolyn Conant, and myself, Kai Marinfeld. Um, we have city staff Corey Sherliff and Johanna Blanco. And then we have uh in the audience one of the applicants for our one of our items this evening. Um all right, first item of business on the agenda. Uh citizens to be heard. This is as usual for anything that is not on the agenda this evening. If it is an agenda item, you can we can invite you up at the time. Um I don't think we received anything via email or the comment portal.

Correct. So I will move along. Uh, approval of minutes from our final meeting of December, excuse me, of 2025, our December 11th, 2025 meeting. Um, Carolyn Jill, have y'all had a chance to look those over? Yes. Any any other clutch catches this time, Carolyn? [laughter] No. Very, very thorough notes. They look good to me. Awesome. And thank you as always um to our wonderful um folks behind the scenes uh taking notes for our agendas and everything. Um okay, we can entertain a motion on that if you've had a chance to look them over.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the um Moab City Planning Commission minutes for the December the regular meeting December 11th, 2025. Okay. A motion to approve the minutes from Jill. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Thanks, Carolyn. All in favor of approving those minutes, say, "I." I. I. I.

All right. Uh, minutes approved. 30. Moving right along. Next, we get to our action items. Uh item 4.1 which is consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 01 or excuse me 1 2026 a resolution conditionally approving a level two site plan for the Shamway mixeduse development for property located at 1082 South Highway 191 Moab Utah 84532. uh staff Johanna Corey, I'm not sure who is leading the charge on this one, but take it away. Okie do. We've got a property at 1082 South Highway 191, um which is going to be a mixed commercial project and they are in the C4 zone. Um the applicant submitted an application on August 29th. We've gone through three rounds of development review team and now we are satisfied with their product. Uh we have one condition. Uh we need a final uh design for their retaining wall which will be sorted out during the building permit process. This is their site plan. You can see they've got [clears throat] uh 30 parking spaces um and a three-story building there. Here are some renderings of what it's going to look like on the outside. And then we have the floor plans for all three levels. We have the top two levels

are going to be office spaces and then the bottom level is going to be eating establishment and retail use. Their landscaping meets all of our landscaping code. This is the narrative submitted by the applicant outlining the uses. three stories, 30 parking spaces. Um, yeah, our analysis is pretty quick on this one. They meet all of our standards. Um, and we're just waiting on that design for the retaining wall. That is the end of my brief. If you have any questions for the applicants, I believe we have a few people here. So this is can what was Canyon Lands Auto Sales. Is that the vicinity? Is that where we are? I was trying to look back at the vicinity map.

South. Yep. Yep. Right next to like Southtown and Pedigo. Yep. Oh, so it's it's the lot right next to Pettigo. Yep. Yep. Between Canon Lands Auto and Makes sense. Uh do you want to come up and say anything about the project or anything? Is uh one of the applicants? I can. Sure. Yeah. It's always nice to hear we don't have a chair for you. Oh no. Oopsie. What happened to the chairs? But look how many chairs are here.

This mirror. Yes. Okay. Yeah. If you just introduce yourself, um, that'd be great.

All right. Hey guys, I'm Ty Shamway and commercial general contractor in town. And me and my partner have owned this lot for since 2017. And we've been trying to figure out how to improve it and make something better the city wants and needs. and uh commercial is kind of what we saw and what what we kind of figured would be the best and high use of this. So, so I'm excited. It's been a few years in work in progress for us. Um but yeah, no, I think uh staff's been awesome. They kind of held my hand all the way. Probably more than they wanted to, but they did a good job and be able to get it figured out. So, I don't know. I can answer any questions you guys have, but um I uh maybe some details you have. I probably I don't I don't know if I want to say this out loud or not, but it's pro

pretty much guaranteed about 50%'s already leased out and I haven't started it. Um, and I've got probably a good soft commitments on the other 40% that's going to be have. So, it's it's definitely a need that needs to happen. I haven't started it. Um, so I'm excited about it and uh kind of just keep kind of growing and giving some kind of needs back to the city and hopefully make it grow and make it better. Yeah, I know you guys have any questions for me on that or your thoughts or

I mean you don't have to speak specifically, but I do think it's always useful. I just that kind of truth is like information for the public because this is often the first time that anyone is like hearing anything about it or seeing. Is it do you have like specialized space or is it just kind of general office that you're doing on the second floor and stuff? The second floor is going to be a um a doctor's office. I still have to kind of keep that under the wrap. Okay, cool. She'll something like that. Yep.

But yeah, but it'll do that. I've got a couple tenants um medical office supply that's looking at it. Um chiropractor looking at it. So, it's looking to turn into some kind of medical fac [laughter] that tends to happen. Yeah, it wasn't the plan the first part. Um, I do know I'll move my office in there. I'll be moving from the Larsson building over into there for my construction company. We'll just have a couple offices to handle my staff.

Um, but the third floor is that's where I'll be and I have most executive offices up there that will be open for lease and stuff like that. We'll have a couple conference rooms. Um, we're still finalizing the design if we're going to open up a wall or not, a smaller one and a bigger one, but we'll see if it gets bigger. Trying to accommodate for people that need an office space or like a conference room to meet and gather

and um have a cafe down below. I haven't got a tenant for that one. I got a couple people interested. That one's I'm like, we'll see how it goes. We're still trying to look and see if that's the best spot for it or not. We figured a little coffee shop or something like that would be good. a bakery in there or something kind of for the for the people that are working right out of the building, right? Um and it kind of helps bring town down towards that way a little bit. But that's just kind of the comments and thoughts and people we've had interest in it and cool excited to get going on it. No, it's exciting. There's not there's some buildings that sort of could be this, but it's it's a surprising lack of the that particular right

kind of it's either all office or all retail and there's not we don't really we don't have a lot of mixed like true mixed use yet. I think there's there's plans in the future for residential mixed use, but office and commercial mixed use we really don't have much of. So that's cool. Yeah, Corey brought your mic down. I did. Um, so just to that point, so with this property, as we saw with the vicinity map, this property uh is a part of the long process that Tai has had to go through, was annexed into the city specifically for his project and has a pre-anaxation agreement kind of surrounding that idea that this really is

from the ground up designed to be mixed use. But in the theory and then originally we even contemplated you know moving beyond just commercial mixed use to a residential commercial mixeduse. But the way the construction and then the needs of the community right now it made a lot more sense just to stick to the mixed commercial route. But there is um with that pre-anaxation agreement if any units were to ever be developed on that site or you know a reconstruction of the third floor uh for a few units they would be active employment household restricted units. So there is kind of a really nice horizon of options for this for this property both for the city and then I I'm thinking and hoping for the for the owner as well. So really really excited about this and hopefully if I might say so myself, what we might see is this is the domino that may begin the revitalization of this corridor area. um really bringing some pedestrian and and and commercial traffic um down to down to the streetscape.

Um I do have an additional comment, but it's more of a technical element near the end, so I'll kind of leave it for the for the after.

Yeah, I'll just echo Kaia and Corey to say um really excited to see this type of mixeduse commercial space. I bet you'll have people kind of fighting over that third floor office space that has deck access that looks really nice and um yeah, it seems like it's a really thoughtful design, meets all of the criteria that we're looking for. So, I think it'll be a great addition to that area. Awesome. Thank Thanks, Caroline. Appreciate that. I do got to give kudos to Courtney Kaiser. She's the one that I just kind of told her what I kind of wanted and she she drew all this and this is a lot of her design and and I really like it. So I think she did she did a good job. Awesome.

Okay. No, I it's really quite straightforward. Thank you. So yeah, thanks Ty. Yep. Thank you. Um All right. As usual, there uh are some options in our agenda summary um including a recommended motion if we would like to conditionally approve this planning resolution with um obviously the following uh condition which is uh has to do with the retaining wall.

It might be good for me to jump in here. So with the motion, that's why I was hoping to make a staff recommendation to the motion. And this is unfortunately Johanna and I didn't I didn't get have time to contribute this to Johanna for it to be there. So uh the phrasing on this uh just to stay in standard with giving some some bookends to how this condition is maybe phrased to how we've done it categorically is I'll just kind of read what the thought would be and if you guys want to accept that

um that when we go to make this motion I'll try to read it. um forwarding a a motion of approval but would be conditionally approved with the following condition. I I would like that following condition to read. As one, all outstanding comments shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the city engineer and planning coordinator prior to building permit application approval, including I. uh the final retaining wall section must be approved by the city engineering department. So that we've we've learned over time that bookending really helps of who and when that condition must be satisfied uh when we do get into building permit. So that's my request.

Anyone want to take a crack?

I can. [laughter] I didn't write it down fast enough. Of course, too fast. I'll go ahead and make the motion, but you're going to have to guide me through this one because I wasn't I didn't write it down. [laughter] I'm not Miles. So, okay. I'll make a positive recommendation uh for this motion to I move that the MOA oops. City of Moab Planning Commission conditionally approve the planning resolution number one 2026. Did you want that that end there at that point or at the end?

That works. I think when we get to the end with the following condition from there I'd like to add what two subsets a planning resolution conditionally approving the level two site plan for the Shamway mixed use development cooperative for property located at 1080s 2 south byway 191 Moab Utah 84532 with the following condition one all outstanding comments shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Moab city engineer and planning coordinator prior to building permit application Approval approval including subset I. The final retaining wall design must be approved by the city engineering department.

That works. What? Corey said [laughter] and uh with the and with the final retaining wall design must be approved by the city engineering department. Mhm. Does that cover it? Perfect. Okay, cover it. Okay, we have a motion from Jill uh with the conditions and qualifications as indicated by Corey. Um is there a second? Oh, second. Okay. A second from Carolyn. Any further discussion or questions? Okay. All in favor of the motion on the table say I. I. I. I. All right. Motion passes 30.

I really need a piece of paper. Thank you, Ty. Good luck on the project. Excited to see it. We're excited to see it. I'm excited, too. We're hoping I don't know. Trying to get plans as soon as I can to building apartment then see how it goes from there. Cool. We're excited. See you. Good luck. Happy New Year. Bye bye. All right. To bring me a piece of paper. Like, what did you think? I'm sorry. No, it's all good. [laughter] No, it is all good.

Okay, moving right along. Next is uh item 4.2, consideration and possible recommendation of Moab ordinance number 202601, an ordinance to annex the property at 486 Riverands Road, Moab, Utah 84532 into the city of Moab. Okie do. Um, as you just said, uh, 486 Riverands Road has submitted a petition for annexation. Um, their current zoning is rural residential. Oh, pardon.

One second. Okay. Um, current zoning is rural residential. The proposed zoning is the split zone of C2 commercial and uh R3 residential. Um we can see up here we got the parcel in question is this longer one. Um, so here you can see it on its current

uh zoning map of the county and here you can see it on the current zoning map of the city with uh the zones bordering it in the city are R3. Sorry, these are kind of small. Uh over here in the peach is R2. Um down here in the light blue is C2. And again, they're going to go for a split zone of C2 and R3. Okay. Um they have a pre-anexation agreement um that was agreed upon in 2024. um this among other things has already decided their zoning which is what we come to planning commission to decide as it pertains to um annexations. So unfortunately this one's already uh we've chosen um through this agreement uh so we don't have too much discussion on that. you still can forward your recommendation. Um anyways, uh there there's also a section in the pre-annexation that says that 100% of any residential development is going to be that active employment household units.

I don't remember this one. It was uh uh informally titled the bird annexation. Uh more formally the Bisco annexation. Um and I think if we if we have the site plan, you'll you may recognize some of these elements. Um yeah, one last thing before we get the the site plan slide. Again, here is our future annexation boundary map. Um, it's well within our boundary uh map area. Can you go back to the

Yeah. like vicinity map? Mhm. And when you say when it's kind of like I'm not pulling this to recollection is that pre-anexation which is what had it has um gone through does not go through the planning commission process. So this is the first time the planning commission republic in this capacity is seeing it heard about it and it's again yeah has been a while I mean yeah since 2024 uh in coordinating with the applicants who I believe we do have available online or in person how about that what timing uh so I believe in person and online we have the applicants

um so working with them as far as having advanced beyond the preh pre-anexation process and then through the petitioning process. So, it was just recently brought through city council for the acceptance of the formal petition. Um, but yeah, it is something that kind of maybe is taking a minute to uh pull to pull to memory. Yep. Stupid question. What's the arrowation? The arrow is just pointing to the parcel. Nothing in particular. Why are we What are we doing with the agriculture? Oh, yes. Like it's moving parcel.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was like, what is that? This is new to me. Even more new to me. So, this buts it's like Orchard Villa on one side and then on the correct. Yeah. Yeah. It's you off of River Sands Road. The um city limit boundaries, as you can see, do actually carry up where river sands through half of the frontage of this parcel is already within city limits. But the city will also uh be taking on that additional parcel or portion of River Sands in addition to this property through the annexation process.

Cool. But not the parcels to the south of it. Currently, that is correct. All right. So, they're going to be a little island. Yep. Okay. I know there's already a little island right across across the way, but this we try not to do that.

Yeah. Just with strategic planning currently going on uh and one of the items tomorrow to be discussed is the annexation policy. Currently, our previous year's policy was a passive policy. We'll kind of put it that way. that with applicants petitioning to come in uh within the context of statutory requirements of the state. We're not creating spot zoning or islands because they're already within our annexation policy area, but filling them in and how aggressive we want to close out islands or peninsula elements. That's what we may be talking about. So, what we're seeing here in kind of the eyebrows of why aren't we just filling in the whole peninsula? Yeah. We're currently in a passive policy state.

Correct. Yep. It is on. But if those property owners want to

um could you talk a little about just sort of the general history of the pre-annexation agreement and this one in particular? This one in particular and kind of what the the overarching Yeah. Maybe bite plan then overarching like plan. In fact, what what I might do and if Ben would give us his blessing to contribute to that, I might talk a little bit from the staff side, but then also the the intention and idea from the applicant side and the cooperation of the ownership team. So totally

um the property owners and the applicant uh originally approached us gosh got to be about 23 couple years back now uh with the acquisition of this property or even the current ownership but moving into the idea of hey we want to revitalize this. So, uh, some existing uses on the property of course, but bringing in saying, "Hey, it would make more sense for us given that the current zoning in the county is RR, which essentially puts the the current uses in a non-conforming status as well as any potential buildout even with their lot requirements. So, it puts this parcel and a couple of others into a really tough spot as far as what to how to revitalize. So with property owners in the option of coming to the city with the zoning designation they would get gives them that flexibility. And of course the nuance here is the idea of a split zone allowing the existing commercial use in that space to continue as is. And then the zoning that would be designated is commercial residential zone C2 customary to that area not immediately adjacent but one parcel removed. uh was seemingly in context of what would make sense to allow that use to continue which is a a needed community use um and then this northern portion to be redeveloped as employee housing or workforce housing specifically. So at least from our side that was the context in which the applicant owners came in said hey we'd like to do this um and then we drafted that agreement in a context that would basically allow them to move through this process that way. So, anything else?

No, that's from the owner sand. That's the gist of it. We had the option like Oh, would you sorry real quick just mind introducing yourself just for the I'm Ben Bird represent them. Okay. We had the option to do the the county's version of this which was the basically trailers. You know, you can move the trailers on like what they were trying to do down the down the road by the sewer plant. The the nuance was the commercial side of it. um they didn't have a tool for us to bring that in or didn't seem to want to or you know so um and I didn't want to do the trailers anyhow. I'd rather have something on a foundation that's fixed and that's the the ADO ordinance, right? I can't remember what they called it if it's

the alternate alternate dwelling ordinance. Alternate dwelling. Yeah. So that's what kind of got me thinking about it where I could stick some employees and and this parcel worked perfect for it. And uh yeah, but like I said, they wouldn't let us put them on foundations. So it kind of pushed us even more towards coming to the city and trying to work something out. So you want more history on it? It was a river,

I think. Yeah. As far as the pre-annexation, that was kind of it. I think and this was an item that at council for the acceptance of the petition was um interesting given the context of time when this originally came in and the pre-anation agreement was uh unanimously approved is now that we're entering the petition there was kind of well wait a minute how have things changed or at least the opinions of the council changed. So and we'll get to this a little bit when we talk about annexation is the density and number of units and all that. So what we're seeing here is with annexations, which is challenging, they must provide a site context or site design layout of what they're trying to do to give to the council and to the agreement some context of what's going to be approved for the pre-annexation agreement. That is not the annexation itself. So with that though, we're looking at 20 units that layout and this design and we we're going to be working with Ben and have a little bit already is we'll still have to go through the building process to ensure the standards of design meet our land use code. So what we're seeing here is the aim. It may not take this in exactly the final form because we have to ensure circulation radiuses setbacks all those things still work. Um so that's the only kind of caveat to as this move forward. There's still work to be done on that end of things.

Cool. Thank you for the information. Caroline, do you have any questions um either for the applicant or for staff?

Um yeah, I had a couple of questions. one I assume is probably not an an issue, but I just noticed in the petition for annexation that's in the packet um under number six there's a reference to the request to be uh zoned R3 and C3 per the pre-anexation agreement instead of C2, but sounds like that's been been cleared up at this point. Yeah, I'm unaware of that discrepancy, but I based um our ordinance and our presentation tonight off of the off the agreement.

This is the written petition I in blue pen. Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, I I think that would be of what would be a scribner's error of a C2. I think it's been fully understood and contemplated on both parties. So, but you're right, that is C3. So, thank you for bringing that up on the record to be um acknowledged. I don't know if we can amend it at this point, per se, but um Okay. Yep. Thank you. And then um I was curious if um when the annexation was noticed if there were any comments received in support or against particularly to for the C2 zoning from any of the neighbors.

Uh yes. So we can get into that now if we want. Um it does not pertain necessarily to and do we have the flowchart available for

we'll go to that really quick. Um so here here is where we're at. Um but Caroline, you've got which is something I was going to mention anyway. Um so we we can see where we're at in the the petition process. So having accomplished the annexation agreement and then received approval and acceptance of the petition by city council um we've been going through our not um certification process notary getting teed up for planning commission. Um so during that time is when uh qualifying objections can be submitted to the boundary commission. Currently there have been two letters. Um, one of them was submitted to the city council and the boundary commission and one of them was just yesterday afternoon submitted to uh the city council and the planning commission. Both of those letters in bold and in their own writing are not objecting to the annexation itself. What they do then proceed to object to were the conditions of density specifically but development standards that were specified in the pre-annexation agreement. So, with that being said, and I feel comfortable having had talked to our city recorder and city manager, um, and we're currently talking to the boundary commission and the county and the county's attorney. Um there's a little bit of maybe not full clarity between the two jurisdictions how these are to be observed, but basically in the letter's clear intent to not object to the annexation, they don't qualify necessarily as an objection in this process. Furthermore, the two owners that have filed objection, which is not me saying this because um that is the job of the boundary commission is if one of the owners were to say I am objecting to the annexation, not the content of the pre-anexation, we would go to the boundary commission potentially to have

them disqualified as a non-affected entity. So it a a lot of a do of jargon to say we acknowledge those letters but they they are not placed appropriately in this process. Um they would have been appropriate during the testimony time for the pre-annexation agreement a year ago or a year and some ago. Mhm.

Um, however, they will more than likely be acknowledged during the public hearing for city council, but they're not actually what I would consider legitimate testimony in this process, which is what, thank you for bringing up. I believe it's worth noting to the commission, but is not, I think, a legally contextual element here. I would be happy to explain that further. I did a lot of jargony type explanation there. So, is there a reason we haven't seen either of those? in um what they were filed for doesn't qu they are a commentary that doesn't qualify. So that that one was submitted to the planning commission. We did not see that.

Yes. As of yesterday. Um but I know it it was sent in at the end of the day. Okay. Yesterday. Oh, I don't to the recorder's office of which is currently being processed by the administration of what it is or is not. Um, so if it were submitted as a comment to the planning commission for tonight, it would have to be qualifying, which it doesn't. Um, so I guess it could have been viewed as a citizens to be heard comment. Yeah.

But that is not what the intent of the neighbors was, is to not be a citizens to be heard comment. And again, a citizens to be heard comment is not on an action item on the agenda. Um, so again, this commentary will very likely be notified at the public hearing for city council, but really doesn't have a place here despite it having been addressed to the uh planning commission, but sent to the C uh city recorder and the county. Got it. Still very web of confusion. I certainly understand. But again, why is why I wanted to at least say it out loud tonight. This we did receive these two letters. Um we're analyzing them for what their qualifications are or are not. Yeah.

Um but that's currently at least our analysis from the city is what how they stand is non-applicable. Yeah. At this point, but are applicable maybe as public testimony during a public hearing. That's that's viable. That's very different from how we normally do things I feel like. And so that's why I just wanted to make sure we were discussing that or acknowledging. I feel like we defin you know there's it's I think it kind of is the there's legal and then there's actual I feel like it's like the yes they weren't which is why I think saying hey this happened actual thing but not sure if it was actually meant to be at least

the council and boundary commission of both they said planning commission I think by accident potentially maybe not I don't know um the other letter was clearly addressed to city council and boundary commission the other one was sent to the boundary commission but addressed to the city council planning commission. So, it wasn't sent to the planning commission. You just said your planning commission city council. Yeah. Um, so it's worth noting that it wasn't sent to you guys, but you clearly were included on it. Um, I understand. So yeah, so it it is atypical, but um I just even if even if us or city council or staff, whomever can't legally or technically consider

those [clears throat] as official objections or content for the record, I want to make sure that we're still discussing them and still seeing them and just to in the interest of yeah transparency and the public for sure perception. And I think that's something as it just came in, we've been grappling with where to send these. Um I think we could still send them to you um for just your observation of what's being said. Um but the nature of them, if I'll just recite it, sure

was simply that that both of them and they were I believe more or less identical. So they were reprinted for and that's why again they're basically identical letters. Um and well I can bring it up and read from them. So, if there's anything else while I'm pulling those up, we want to cover. No, I appreciate you explaining that um for the public and and also noting that the public hearing for this will take place at city council level, not with us, which is also that works from how we often do things. So, I tell you what they said. I'll tell you [laughter] I have one of I have one of them here.

Yeah, that's fine. Just the general just as fine. um they're both opposed to the 20 units. The density was too high and the traffic was too much. And then one of them was concerned with uh sewer that we were going to continue using a septic system and was going to contaminate their well, their landscaping well. Um and the other one was concerned with the utility services on that road. So

yeah. Yeah. So, I've included the density calc at the bottom bullets there and then the R2 zone just for comparison to see what's allowed in other zones um in response to those comments that this is going to be by right and again echoing what Corey said, we still need to go through the review process. So, concerns about utilities and about the density will be addressed. utilities will be addressed and density may be addressed um depending on how everything works out in our review process.

Um yeah, I'll read verbatim the second uh paragraph which it's only a page and a half. It's not not that long, but uh while we do not oppose the annexation itself, we understand the potential benefits and reasonable growth, we are formally protesting the inclusion of a specific number of housing units in this annexation proposal. And so again, that's where their protest isn't relevant to this entire process. It would have been relevant to pre-anaxation. So while that can be good testimony to be brought in for the council at their hearing for context of they're not obligated to approve this annexation given they've approven approved

the pre-anexation. U they're not obligated to that, but so they could have that contribute to their uh possible denial is I know we agreed to this but it feel whatever. Um but that the nature of both letters were just that and then like Ben said that one of them had more specific development standard conditions which again would be addressed later on. Totally. It's an interesting thing when you do a pre-anexation agreement and you provide a picture. Right. Yeah. Maybe these people would have been opposed to the annexation if it was just an annexation, right? And it was just R3 or R2 and C2 and there was no picture. But

you know, with this in place, it it changes things totally in people's perspective. So yeah, I think anytime it's R anything to C, you're always kind of they they're not opposed to the C at all. Yeah. Neither of those. They're opposed to the R and the density. They don't have a problem with the C. Interesting. Neither of them neither of them talked about because it had been a Yeah. You know, it was a river company for 30 or 40 years with with a lot of things going on. So, you know, and that's kind of what pushed us into this in the first place is, you know, the non-conforming stuff. Yeah. So,

yeah. No, thanks for the explanation and to the folks who submitted um their input, we'll call it. Um we're finding a place to have that be considered too. All right, Carolyn, any thoughts, questions, input?

Nope. Yeah, I appreciate that explanation. I was a little confused by the process as well and kind of the order of operations here. So appreciate the um showing of the flowchart and I don't have any other questions. All right. Uh as usual there is a recommended motion in the packet um in the agenda summary. Oh and also up on the screen. Thank you Johanna. Um once again this would be there is already a pre-anexation agreement. So, if we make a positive recommendation on the annexation itself, the pre-anexation agreement controls specifics of what that annexation will look like, including zoning. Um, so we do not have uh any say in that, but we we can make a recommended motion or a motion to reject the annexation itself. But as usual, if it is a negative um or rejection, we have to give specific reasons as to why um and direction to staff. So that said, does anyone want to make a motion? I'll go ahead to forward a positive recommendation to Moab City Council on Moab ordinance number 2026-01, an ordinance to approve the annexation of property located at 486 Riverands Road, Moab, Utah 84532.

Okay, we have a positive recommendation from Carolyn. Is there a second? I'll go ahead and second that. All right, a second from Jill. Uh, any further discussion? All right. Yeah, I think I think having this in front of city council will be good to kind of have that that next step of everything, too. But good good that things are getting figured out. [clears throat] Um, okay. Uh, all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. I. All right. Motion passes 30. Ben, thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Good luck. See you, Ben.

Thanks, Callie. I think you're you've been on there. I appreciate you being on there. All right, moving on. Hi there. [laughter] Uh, our discussion item for the evening, item 5.1, the land use code update discussion. Here we go. All right. Well, I hope you three are really ready to get into it. um Barry coming to be a part of this. Yes, we've invited Barry and he may be um at his availability probably joining us for maybe the next two workshops um

to kind of give you an overarch where we're going. This was um getting into sophistication of uses. Um, so a bit of homework based off the materials. Um, those materials being produced by Johanna off of a lot of what we've been working through on the back end of audits of the current code from existing uses, uses that um are within the community but undefined or those that are fine but don't actually have a permitted area. Uh, and then those that we feel are just un unagnowledged. Um, so within the sophistication, we will eventually take this into a very philosophical realm soon. And that's where I think we're really going to want Barry. But we'll right now have the overarch of Barry looking at these as well in the in the idea and context that when we're developing these,

it will benefit us to consider these uses through the lens of the building code and occupancies. So as we're developing these uses they will as we've said uh both the use not have superfluous uses uses that group uh from a land use context where certain uses us usage excuse me uses should be by district. That's the whole purpose of separating just not saying retail um blankly. We'll say these types of retails maybe make sense in different districts and that's how we can space them out differently. Beyond that though um from various contexts there can be variable types of occupancies within a retail um I don't know the one that's coming to my mind I don't know if I want to use that one is the perfect example um maybe we maybe we do um so say there's a community that has a new uh dispensary coming into it and within that depending on how that scope of operations for their business model works From our end, we might be calling that from a land use a retail uh use, but from Barry's perspective of occupancy, how they actually operate might be a medical clinic or it might be a merkantile or it might be um uh what was the other one be

it could be assembly as well.

Assembly. Thank you. And so and again th these terms and this is what I'd like the commission to become a little bit more familiar with is and the idea of how we and just in the prior discussion talk kind of color coding is we have these big blocks and we'll get more and more specific as we go is we have residential uses and commercial uses by category and within that or and then I said industrial and civic and a few others but then within that there are occupancy groups merkantiles assemblies um that have specification around those. And so maybe we're using that as a a tiered step on how and where to categorize things to ensure that basically we're not permitting uses in a zone that have per particular regulations that conflict what what the building codes regulations will require. Um we haven't fully teased this out that there may be a bunch. It's just the idea to have in the back of our mind. So it's it's rare when we come across many that have immediate conflicts. We often can work with each other pretty well. But um what's your observation Barry?

Yeah. How do you want me to go about this?

Yeah. Well, I think for now let's get this higher level and then let's get into the uses and I think we'll come back at the end to really I think drive home the idea of how some of these uses that we'll be talking about would actually be represented from your perspective. Well, one thing is what is an occupancy group, right? That's kind of a concept because they're different ways of looking at what's actually happening, but it's what we use to define how a building is being used. Um, ownership doesn't come into it. It's it's really what are the people in there, how many are there, and maybe the hazard level of it as well. And like Corey said, there are different kinds of occupancy groups in different levels. Uh one example would be an assembly use. So a restaurant is an assembly use but so is a football arena. And obviously the risks there and the number of people are very different. So they have very different standards. So these occupancy groups drive everything about the design of the building. the number of people that we allow, exits, fire sprinklers, all of that stuff with Corey's uh mentioning of the dispensary is a good example. So, if it's a merkantile and people just come in and go like city market, okay, I would call that a merkantile. If it operates where you come in, you have a prescription, you have to get checked in, and then the staff member takes you to the back to go shopping one person at a time. Well, that's from my point of view operates more like a doctor's office. And so, we would design the building differently on that. What we, like Cory said, what we don't want is is conflicts where I'm telling the person, "Well, you have to do this."

and the city saying, "Well, no, you got to do something different." That really creates a problem. The one I was thinking of was our Forplex AU conversation, too. Absolutely. What is it and how do we address it? And one [clears throat] thing to keep in mind is it's great when our codes line up, but there's no rule that says they have to. Let can we lean into that example really quick because the commercial one was a good example, but that's a really good residential one because as we start talking about toolkits for housing, how do we get more housing? Often people kind of just let's throw density at it.

Okay. And in many causes we have done that and this is what we're seeing. So maybe this isn't exactly it but maybe it was where we're going. Imagine we had a twin home. Is that where we're going with this? Okay.

Imagine we had a twin home. Uh so basically it is two individual lots but there's a separation of ownership down the middle standard twin home. Each of those sides of the twin home according to our land use code is permitted to have an internal ADU. But what that does in a change of definition maybe I'll my familiarity since the state changes maybe maybe I can't replicate it perfectly. But what it used to be anyway is what the code used to say is a a a single structure that has three or more units would be classified differently than one that is two units or so on and so forth.

Um so what we would have from the zonico is oh that's a really easy product because from the land use regulations you just have two single family homes with two ADUs. What you're actually looking at when you're looking at Barry's rule book or not Barry but you know the books that Barry must require the improvements for is a forplex. So it is no different than four substantially defined units. Um so that the people thinking, "Oh, an ADU, that's my way to get easy density." You're having to follow all the same rules as a a multi- household building or an apartment,

right? It's it changes the occupancy group. Still residential, but it changes that level. And it would drive us towards things like fire sprinklers. Right. So that would be a significant effect for the developer and the old I have to put fire sprinklers in. That's a lot of money. So that's the question that we've been struggling with is what is this thing? How do we go about it?

So it's something to keep in mind with Yeah. with with the uses and the different neighborhoods. there's more effects as to what's what what could happen down the road. Um, I I like that to kind of maybe pause there because that's a really good example of commercial and residential how these lenses not to say that we may not still lean into the idea of ADUs being permissible with it in twin home. But what that will do is at least through acknowledging that we're knowing because again the the grounding rod we want to continue to use here is focusing on mitigation of impacts and uses truly categorizing uses in districts that have similar or contextual comparable impacts to each other. Um so and this is what we've had recently as well is in the R2 zone somebody building fully within the R2 zone but to the extent that you really can um extend the impact of those uses. So, a duplex in the R2 zone is totally permissible. But depending on number of bedrooms and the height and how big you build that, you could have in theory 20 32 24 you could have

22 people living in an R2 zone. So, what the the push back we've gotten from the community is how could you let this happen? That's fully that's fully within your property rights to do that. So, I'm not saying that we're trying to interfere with that, but I think it understands sophistication of of how we're using our land use tools in the context of property rights and within occupancy construction. Um, so I'd like to I mean, I'd like to kind of maybe kick your hand for before we kick the commission. Anything else framing wise? I'd like to walk through my spreadsheet because I sent it out, asked you guys to take gander, but I realized that it's not the most easy to read. Um, so I'm going to quickly go through it and then um after our conversation today, we can come to our next meeting with even more ideas. Um, so this first column is the right from the definition section just all of the definitions that are uses. I've taken out all the definitions that are not uses. Then I have um uses that are permitted within all of our zones. Made a big long list. All the ones that match exactly or pretty much exactly I've put into this column and they're highlighted. Um, then these next couple columns are all uses that are listed as permitted in our code but are are kind of slant rhymes to the defined uses. Um so along with redefining or let me rephrase along with uh coming up

with new uses that make sense along with the building code. We also need to set up some sort of chart that uh takes all of our existing uses that have been permitted and kind of organize them into definitions or add definitions. Mhm.

So at some point we our goal is to have all highlighted so we have mismatching on both sides. We've got uses um bed and breakfast. That's not a great one. Um we got we got we got definitions without any uses that line up exactly and we got uses with no definitions. So that's uh that's this section. Um as we get over here, this is carpenter shop for example. Great one. It's permitted. But what is a carpenter shop?

What is that? To what extent? Um, and then I have new lists which I think it would be helpful for um, you all to get out into the community or just use your knowledge as um, locals to add to uses that we see in the community but are not permitted. Not that we're going to be adding this as a use, but when we make our larger categories of uses, we'll need to make sure that everything existing in our community fits in those larger boxes

and we don't want to leave anybody out. So, as specific as you'd like, uh, it would be helpful to add to this list. And off of the last meeting that was kind of Kai's request said, "Hey, can can we go back and look through all their business licenses, all the uses that have been permitted and make sure they fit the context." It's that same exercise because currently they are out there, they're licensed, they're operating. So, we're going to ensure that either they are if they're not one of the highlighted things already, they become recognized or they nicely fit into an acknowledged category that we they are totally housed. So that is I think a really beautiful way to describe this process of of what we're trying to do. Um and again using carpentry shop here going back to it how I hope to use the building code and occupancy in that context is if from a land use side we're like carpentry shop why should that be any different than depending on scale of course warehouse or just retail depending on what's happening there. Um, and that's where if we say it could be in this category or it doesn't even need a category. Why is this even here? The last check I would say is is there a weird occupancy reason why this should be a standalone thing. Fireworks shop, for example.

Well, carpentry is a good maybe a good example. A good example. So, yeah. Um, the carpentry occupancy would be an F for a factory typically. Um, generally it's pretty safe, but the electrical code considers it a hazardous location because of all the sawdust and explosion hazard. So, okay. So, maybe that does go in a different neighborhood.

So, so I'm really glad we caught that one. So the example could be we choose we create a factory use and carpentry shop fireworks any of those things or a super elaborate coffee shop for instance [laughter] that qualifies through as a factory we would lump in and just factory is the use and it's populated as including but not limited to carpet shop fireworks giant coffee shop uh so on and so forth or we say coffee shop is distinctly different that or coffee roaster, excuse me. Coffee roaster is distinctly different than a firework shop. So, we do want to break those apart and not just have factory be the one because where are we going to place it? We place that likely in an industrial zone. Well, for fireworks, maybe that makes sense. But for a coffee roaster, maybe we're okay with that being in other commercial zones. So, that's what I want to start with what would be in theory as consolidated and as um simple as few uses as possible. start with as few uses and then specify as needed versus what I believe a lot of our code was is it wasn't in our code before somebody says I want a shoe repair shop and they're like I let's just put it in the code and so they they're putting these things into the code just as oneoffs and so when we're looking at how to organize our uses through zoning we're like shoe repair shop why is that different anyway

maybe it is and maybe that's just like carpentry we asked Barry Is a shoe repair shop different than a typical retailer some you know service shop you might say right um so that we could know how to contextualize where that could be different or similar to other type service uses this has gone so much better than I thought it was going to be y uh with the framing but thank you any I did jump in there anything else you want to say

um I've been having a lot of fun with his possible uses to add uh we don't want to be limited to what we just have right now. Anything more? We want to make sure that again it just fits into our buckets. Not that that we're going to copy and paste. Um I don't know why I have that on there. Water tank. Oh, never mind. I was imagining like with the the ball. Um anyways, uh there's also a list of codes that I've been referencing um that have been very helpful to me. Um if you want to take a look Mhm.

Um, if we want to keep on this, otherwise we can go to formatting. Yeah. How would I mean, given it's just the the three commissioners tonight, how would you like to go? Would you like to go page by page or do you want us to go through it and then have you respond? Because I do want to start getting some responses out of you guys. Yeah. Sorry, I'm so cold. Distracting, honestly. Yeah. Um,

Corey, what what responses are you looking for specifically? I think that yeah, kind of Johanna's request of what uh very linear what this here's what Johanna's prepared for you as far as materials uh of the actual we're showing our work here. Here's what is here's what isn't and here's what we're beginning to contemplate. So, our homework, if you will, as of last time was to for you to walk away be in the community experiencing that, maybe communicating with folks of what what are

hey, I really wanted to do this, but I'm having a hard time with the planning department because they don't know where to put me type of a thing. Though, that type of feedback. We're we're already trying to do that. We do that often with our our licensing system. That's where we often the rubber's hitting the road with that. But, you guys have access to a whole bunch of things we don't. So, that was the the hope. First thing that comes to mind for me is like home occupation businesses. I think that is such a vast array of things. It's everything from like somebody doing somebody's taxes, you know, as like a CPA in their home to trying to bake stuff in their home, which I know comes up a lot. That's like my example of we need a place in the cove for this. Um,

it would be great if we could figure out a way to either separate those by sort of intensity of use and not have it be such a broad umbrella. Um, yeah. Yeah. I am cooking up a plan. I was gonna say [laughter] that lives in a slightly different section than the code. Yes, true. True. But not really. So, it is worth it's worth mentioning at least as a placeholder for this exercise. Is it within the licensing or we are looking at that? Um it would pro vendor license maybe is a good way to say this home enter would be like home enterprise so the county has homes we will in the code now that language isn't it what's that

the like the home occupation business or something isn't that in the code now it is yeah and so that we want to sophisticate that to basically levels right now we we the city have home occupation it it is just this we as you've expressed there's a huge huge array of those. So, the more we're able to sophisticate tiers of intensity, this is a good conflict. That's probably the one we should have started.

Well, it's that one's for a different day, which was why, but that's exactly it. So, that's where when it comes to Barry, we really start monkeying with stuff. And in fact, the coffee roaster thing I was kind of teasing about is one we've been grappling with of from the land use side, a coffee roaster, it could be acceptable for a home occupation license, but depending on what the what is being done, scope of operations for varied, that home now becomes a factory occupancy. And now the you've heard us talk about this as the spiral staircase. Many people in the community are going to recognize that term.

We start with planning of Yep. go for it. Go start designing that. Go talk to the building department, fire department, health department of what they'll need you to do. So they this person goes and they say, "Barry, this is what I want to do." Okay, you're going to need uh or maybe we'll start with uh say say the health department, you're going to need this many sinks and cleanouts and and wash basins. Okay, they add that and then they go to the fire department. Well, you're going to need this many accesses and blah blah blah to make it safe and even fire sprinklers. And then by the time he gets to Barry, he's looking at this like this is this is a factory floor layout. This isn't a garage anymore. Yeah.

So Barry's occupancy change and then they'll have to mitigate that to Barry standards. By the time it gets back to planning, it's not a garage anymore. It is a full-blown factory. And I have to say, sorry, you guys can't do that because you no longer qualify as a home. So the acknowledging that because right now a home occupation cannot be perceptively different than a home. It can't from the street amongst many other standards. Um so what we would say is we acknowledge that homes could be perceptively different but they have to follow these categories of tiers of standard anyway. And this is where we've had this philosophy before. How much do we want to encourage that? Um, which is an rhetorical open-ended question where we now have our residential areas developing as quasi commercial impacts. So, a neighbor said, "I bought into this neighborhood thinking I wouldn't I would have a a residential use next door to me. These guys are doing whatever it is they're doing commercial wise. Um, and it's impacting me disproportionately. So it actually is breaking down uklitian zoning standards of separation of uses because of impacts. So

yeah, great. That was a great tea off of

home occupations, home enterprises and then probably even maybe one or two additional tiers of category that may be acceptable of in these residential zones maybe these types of home occupations, but in these residential zones, these ones are not because they're too intense. and something to work on other than the SE workshop that we'll have about the tiered home uh business discussion is in this um observed community uses or possible uses. Uh just listing out any uses that we see in home occupations a lot

but could be in commercial buildings outside of the home that we're just lacking because developers go to our permitted uses. They don't see something that they think would fit their category and they say, "Oh, Moab's not the place to build." So an example of this is I know this is spelled wrong, but commissary kitchen. um so that we can have it listed as a permitted use. People can do that outside of their homes and maybe maybe lessen the amount of home occupations as we get more and more commercial buildings,

if you will, pave the path for the things we want to be easy to do in the places we want them. Absolutely. It's not to say we couldn't figure out how to get a commissary kitchen into a particular commercial zone. But if it's not listed and doesn't have standards or is acknowledged, it might be not even a potential buyer is like, I didn't even see it on the list. So, they may not even come in to ask the question, let alone what it might take for us to navigate a use that isn't listed. Well, well put. Well put. Um, anything else from the commission before I maybe move on to framing or anything else?

No, it's good for now for me. Good, good stuff. Corey, can you explain what you meant by um district or is that part of the the formatting framing conversation like when you were talking about uses by district? Yeah, it's synonymous with zones. Uh, so zone districts, same same. Um, so yeah, if I ever if I'm ever referring to a district or a use district, it's usually a here's a zone land use zone district. Same things. Okay,

good question. Yeah, that's kind of a jargony piece. I didn't it didn't register 10:00. [laughter] [gasps] Um, okay. So going on to formatting of what um when we're making our use categories um there's going to be larger headings and then subheadings and we've seen in other communities there's two common ways to break this up. Um so I've put a example up here um where in one we have franchise and then under franchise we have restaurant and we have retail. Then when it comes to definition time, we just we define franchise. We define restaurant and we define retail. And then we kind of combine those in our own minds.

And then franchise can be used um for all all sort of things. And restaurant can be used for all combination of things not listed here. Or option two is um a little more specific uh franchise, restaurant, franchise, comma, retail. Um, and that would just have us define things um, very very very specifically

um, and not as combinable with other words in our definitions um, but gives us a better grab at uh, describing exactly what we're talking about. So, I have a good example of this if please. Yeah. So, um is this making sense or is an example maybe helpful? This makes sense, but go ahead and give us example.

If if we want to think about inner code right now, ADUs, uh in this instance, so ADUs are uh the uses that are permitted by zone. But then within the ADU, there are different types. And so in our definitions, we have here's what ADUs are, and then we have ADU, comma, type one, ADU, comma, type two. depending on how we do this. Um, fran going back to the franchise is a really good one to demonstrate this point. If we stick with option one, it could be tricky. It's it's kind of this idea of we're categorizing all franchises equally because we would list franchise is is a use and then their subtypes. But we would say or could say franchises are permitted in the C3 and C4 zone, but it could be any franchise and then sub subcategory of franchise. So, it's a little it's a little tricky that way to do it, but it could be helpful depending on what we're using. Option two is we distinguish between uh restaurant and franchise restaurant and then they be separated different zones. Um or even franchise restaurant and a franchise grocery store could be broken into two different zones. So any those are those are kind of the obvious ones. AU is a little more subtle but basically we were kind of grappling with how to approach this code. um from if you would think about it from a filing context, you go down to franchises and then you open the franchise folder and here's all the things inside franchise folder versus just having one big list of everything that you have in the list. The subcategorizations just on on face. Um we've seen it in both ways, both examples. I'm not sold on one or the other. I'm leaning toward I think

because the examples the whatifs we've gotten to the opportunity for specificity to break them into appropriate zones and be a little bit more particular is better in option two but it creates from a user's perspective a lot it just comes at you at this big block of stuff versus saying I'm a franchise agent I'm going to go to where franchises are permitted and then go down to restaurant Mhm. So, search a search matrix style of who's trying to use our code.

Yeah, I've got um bigger examples of communities that use each style. So, your feedback on that would be really helpful as well. What communities? We got my new favorite Sedona. I got a big old crush on their code. Um, and then Springdale. I like option two. I like the way that and that's actually so one step further. Um, with those two examples and I don't know if Sedona or excuse me, Springdale is still operating in this way.

Um, so Springdale outside Zion or one of our more kindered Sedona is kindered as well. Those are great both examples. But with Springdale, they're his they're historically a formbbased or at least some of their districts are formbbased code. So saying franchise and grouping it that way maybe does make sense for them. But if we're in a community that works a little more attempting to be nuanced in other ways, that makes a lot of sense. that form-based way of approaching things or or use form maybe isn't as specific.

It was an exercise I did not anticipate us stumbling into, but as J brought like it's really it's a thoughtful consideration. Um yeah, we got a whole pile of considerations. Yeah. I like the way the as I opened the link for the Sedona, right? like the way that it looks. It looks Whoops. That's Yes. It just It looks clean. Even though you said, you know, like it's a lot of information, but the way that they've done this, it it's um seems pretty [clears throat] user friendly. The the intuitive ability, somebody just somebody just live in a meeting pulling up saying, "I think I can navigate this. I can do this."

That's our attempt. What Jill's looking at because I can look over her shoulder here is a matrix of uses. Here are all the uses and here's all the districts that they're they're permitted in or conditional in um or otherwise. Yeah, that is how we're going to be constructing our code. So what you're looking at in fact even it's the same software system. So publishing uh who they are is our same the same key. So it will look exactly the same. They'll be populated obviously with our color and right. Yeah, it looks uh I like the way that it's I like the way it's categorized as well. Oh, good. Well done.

Yeah, I was initially more drawn to option one. I think like not having the the planner brain, it seems like a more intuitive way to kind of sort or process information. I guess what we're looking at here doesn't you'd have to click on each one to read the definition. So, that does help. Like I think listing out all of those really specific definitions like an option two is is definitely overwhelming as a reader or somebody searching for information, but this is a good example of how to take that more specific approach without it being an overwhelming amount of

information. But I was wondering um you know it's going to be such a great code update but we're probably going to miss like one or two things and from the perspective of like going back and adding additional things in the future is one or the other of these approaches more conducive to you know making those quick updates or fixes. It's an excellent that's a great question. I mean, that's a question I think I could probably sit on a little bit because I I think that is a good question because that ultimately is how you end up getting bogged down later on, right? If a cross reference if a cross reference doesn't cross reference to the right place anymore and that's where we're at. Then it gets really swirly.

My reaction would be that option two is a remedy to that because then it's it's specific. It's line eye specific. You're not within Yeah. in breakdown factors that you're having to go back and track through. Yeah,

where you re you miss. I didn't realize there was a a franchise restaurant. I just was looking over here at restaurant. So, I think option two typically, especially in this format. Um, but that that's almost the most premier goal of this rewrite is we know it's not going to be perfect. In fact, we're we're actually in we're intentionally designing it not perfect because we, as we've talked about, are going to have version one and then the version two we're immediately going to be continuing to work on. So, it has to speak to continual maintenance. um is when Michael contracted with Kenyon East that was the idea is this needs to be constructed in such a way that we can we can we're going to be going through planning commission city council I would anticipate once a month maintaining our code and that's what Nathan our our attorneys like you guys aren't obtaining your code every month

because other communities do that because the ease in which they can actually plug it in because the the overall code is not broken so they can just they can play with it every single month. Um, that's great. That's our hope. That's our our big hope is that we would just be like, "Oh, yeah, easy. We'll we'll fix it." Nice. Um, but that that speaks to legislative updates, uh, moves and shifts within the building code. It's it it we have to fix our code that we feel comfortable popping the hood any given moment.

Yeah. Yeah, I feel like sometimes that the sort of like hyper specificity can almost work against you in that way too. Um or create I don't know create more work maybe less in the long run but more in the short run. So I'll have to think a little bit more to come up with like specific examples of what I mean for that with the hypersp specific approach. But that's one other mini concern for me for the option two approach.

Well, I think you've hit on something that I was saying earlier in this meeting, which is the hypocrisy of what I'm saying, which is I want to go as simple as possible and then make it complicated. But my preference is to build it in a way that is going to be the more complicated way. But I I think there's some some subtle [laughter] elegance to that that that pushpull uh of how to construct it is I think we're aiming for simplicity but being able be building to the complexity that is not no more complex than it has to be. I think is that's the push pull I think I'm hoping to steer the code code towards. And I guess that's that's the detail with purpose. If we have to break out that there's two different types of eating establishments. I don't want it to be an arbitrary purpose. It has to be that we have to make two restaurants because from the building code, this type of restaurant is categorically different than this one. But if we're just like, h I like, which is what our code says right now, retail that's 2,000 square feet and and less than 2,000 square feet or 2,000 greater, that's an arbitrary distinction. Why does that matter? It's just a scaling element. So, we have that in our code currently that is detailed without intention. And we have folks right now that are grappling with that that they're, you know, they're 2006 square feet of a retail. How are we going to make that work?

I have a question for you. Please. Looking at a generic term like franchise, we all think of a coffee shop or fast food or something. We put that in the C3 zone. What happens when somebody comes in, they want to open a franchise, fireworks factory, [clears throat] or automobile factory or something? It's franchise, but it's not what we think of as Main Street. So, Yep. Do either of these options deal with that kind of devil's advocate situation?

I believe option two does, which is why I've moved away from option one because I think in the nuance in the state of Utah, the tie going to the runner, if we if we miss something and fran they're like, I am 100% a franchise. We're like, but we didn't mean a franchise fireworks factory. Too bad your franchise is a permanent in that zone. And if there's no further specification, but they do qualify as franchise, you're permitting a fireworks franchise.

Um, so option two, I think, is the the protective agent against that. Um, where we can have, you know, ADU, you know, going back to the ADU, maybe for whatever reason, we decide ADU type ones are really meant to be in the R1 R2 zone, but type 3es make sense in a different zone. If we just say ADUs are permitted in these zones, anything in ADU could be permitted. But if we say ADU type one's here, ADU type 2's here, um it's the specificity that could get tricky like Carolyn's saying, but I think when we're talking about the code being uh articulate,

we we it hopefully we won't be having those oversteps. And if we do recognize that there is one, we can remedy it quite quickly. or maintain it, which is even a better way. We want this code to be basically if goodness forbid Johan and I just are abducted by aliens tomorrow. They hire new planning staff, they can walk in and be like, "Oh, yep. It's right here." Pretty straightforward. Not a lot of narrative interpretation or or memorandum of past interpretations they have to rely on. It's all just here. It's right. I don't know if that's a god forbid anymore. It's maybe like a abducted by aliens. Maybe that sounds good at this point in history. Sometimes

I might take that option given. Um sometimes it's hard to take us on the comedic route. Uh no, I and I agree. I think I I as sort of clunky as the chart seemed, it it's all broken down. And I do think because coming back to the home occupation thing like it would it would be like you know um sole proprie what like like cottage law type kitchen home occupation. And then we have like there was, you know, at one point there was like a gun cleaner, a gunsmith

who was working in their house, you know, and then we have a seamstress and then we have, you know, that all those kinds of things. I think I think if we had it broken down by like I'm just thinking like retail, home occup like things like that. Yeah, it makes sense to to categorize the specific use first and then whatever its sort of designation is. I think that's the other kind of hanging element we haven't quite gotten to here will be use parameters. M

so and this is in the zone right now which goes against Carolyn's I think simplicity element but I don't and this is again we're I'm kind of open to this idea of and we've seen this in the C4 zone your professional office is a a different list of what you have to do than in the C3 C4 and C4 professional offices are different than how they're constructed and use parameters if they're done well I'm not actually opposed to that because what at the end of the Hey, what we're hoping to do is likely create maximum ability of flexibility of uses can be wherever they want. They're being mitigated to the impacts that they might create. So, in this zone, you may not have to have as large of a buffer uh of a professional office, but in this zone, you do need a much bigger buffer if you're if you're going to do that use. Um, so use parameters are a different an additional tool to the additional specificity of a use. So if we if we decide they're both still professional office and we decide not to categor define them differently that professional offices large and professional offices small are different. It's just professional offices. It's one use. The use parameters are the way that we can actually t further mitigate the differences of where they should be located if that makes sense. Corey and I are trying to maxim maximize our yes if [clears throat]

opportunities. Would you also quote kind of Johanna said this yesterday I tried to requote it during strategic planning what what we're experiencing in the community right now and I don't see it going away which is why I think it's worth hearing now and kind of complimenting but we've already talked about it but can you quote that again? Yeah, we've um with our recent business licenses, we've seen um a recession indicator of people be being increasingly scrappy um with their businesses doing all sorts of uses

under one um and maybe listing a bunch of uses in their approval and they'll do whatever works at the time. Mhm. Um, so we're going to have a lot of increased mixed uses Mhm. coming on as people are trying to make it work. Making Yeah. in these next couple years. So that'll be an interesting thing to juggle as well. On that I really want to stop talking, but on that point, Barry and I did have the discussion of

So we're seeing that. So right now we're having to within a singular space that somebody wants to have a hair salon, gelato, a yoga studio, and a t-shirt shop within the same 1,000 square feet. Like because that's the scrainess they're they believe they need to make it as a business. They need all this diversity, which is I believe atypical to standard use st standard business practices. People are just trying to be more scrappy and creative. But what that's doing to us is we're having to either like we're sectioning off portions of this internal space. There's no walls. We're just saying this is your half of the room. These are your half. And your half the room needs three fire extinguishers and your half needs two bathrooms. It's a nightmare for people because they're just coming in with this genuine authentic idea of what they believe works and we're throwing this nonsense at them. But from our end, it's not nonsense. We're we're do because what somebody else would say is you can't do that. Pick one. I think we want to extend the yes if as much as we can. One idea with this is versus having a mash medley of restrictions on spaces much like an occupancy is maybe we and like that we the use is you have a mixed commercial use space and you maybe have to follow the building code occupancy requirements of the use what that use parameter might be in the inside. But from us we're going to say you got to go right to the top tier of whatever the impact mitigation is. So maybe bookstore you you just need three parking spaces, but the part of the eating establishment you want to add to that bookstore requires seven. We're saying you're we're going to qualify you as a mixed commercial uh assembly. So you you're going straight to seven parking spaces, five bath. You go to the tippy top if you want to have this creative category. But then it gives them unlimited creativity to evolve in that space because what we're seeing is we know as soon as we give them the CEO, as soon as

they give their sign permit and they're opening the doors for business, they're going to recognize they want to start changing stuff, but we've boxed them into the quarter. Your side's that side, your side's that side. Don't sell t-shirts over there. Don't have coffee over there. And now they're in immediate violation. So just getting rid of those barriers is a concept we've started to kind of toy with. I'm not sure how we feel about it, but um again, we're throwing a lot at you um with again the idea of maximizing the our our yes if yes you can do it if you do these things. Yes. And yes and

one of the big challenges that we run into all the time is this the scale of what a person wants to do. If you have a room that's 100 square feet and they want to sell coffee and do yoga in there, well, it's it's self-limiting. But if they have a much bigger space, then the differences between those two become more dramatic and harder to deal with. So that's one of the challenges. How do we how do we deal with the maximum highest impact use and occupancy in that space? Maybe that means it's not possible. It's just questions we have to deal with and each one has its own answer. But it's something to think about what we do with that yoga student. Yeah.

Right. become Johanna, have you seen any examples in other codes where codes try to like put a limit on the number of uses in the same space?

No, I have seen a use that is um mixeduse commercial and then they have a definition for what that means. Um and then I also uh have seen a use that is um conversion uh where you're going from one use to another within the span of the day. Um

in the morning we are yoga, in the evening we are art studio. Um, I haven't looked too ind depth, but there's all sorts of creativities out there um that if you're interested in that, I can certainly um pull both of those and um get that those communities definitions of those if that's something that we're interested in. Is that something that you could see being requested? Like, oh, hey, my studio is yoga this morning, but all evening I

let it out to art people or something. That would probably be a something that we offer to people so that they would have to do Yeah. less of something. I didn't know if that's something maybe that would be an good incentive for shared parking or something, right? Um I think we have gotten that or we're getting it more and more too. You could see I mean think about like the press for example. I feel like that's a really good example of a forthcoming business that at least originally indicated that they wanted to have something like that, like a flex space that could be

used for like a popup restaurant, but also isn't that most of the time or for like a morning they could be one of the kitchens. We rent out our kitchen in the morning to home bakers or whatever, but in the night it's a restaurant or I don't know. We're we're grappling that with I think I think there's different categories where it's never trip. It's not yet tripping stuff that's too weird. And sometimes we do actually get that. But for instance, uh there's a business park where there are spaces that have multiple businesses within them. Um business licenses that occupy that unit, but they change out who's in there. kind of what we were saying. So, conversion,

but they're all within the same occupancy typically and most of the time not tripping. Yeah, maybe they even are different uses, but they don't have different standards. So, we're okay with that. It's when we want to be a restaurant in the morning and a fireworks studio in the evening. Yeah, that's we've had stuff that not literally do stuffudio stuff that is clearly boutique fire build their own fire build their own. Yeah.

Um but we've had that and in fact with warehouses we've kind of seen that people like to utilize those different spaces that do tend to get a little too creative. So we haven't anything had anything brush up that we've had a major problem with that we haven't either achieved or it just never came through. Um, but it's something to start considering maximum flexibility. Again, the big challenges with something like that is what they initially want to start that space with. They want to start it with a low impact, lowhazard situation and then a week after they open raise the level of that. That's the challenge. They start with the higher level like the press.

Okay, we've dealt with a lot of those hazards. So anything else that they're going to do in there is sliding in underneath there. Yeah. So they say, "Well, I want to do an art show and show off my art tonight." Fine. Yeah. Go for it. Yeah. They're they Yeah. And we've had that in a couple other places. And it's the idea of if there's a shell, a business shell, and they just want to rent it out to they don't know what the tendencies are. Yeah. For uses. It could be a restaurant. It could be a mechanic shop. And this is an active case that we have. Uh we said then just go to the top tier of building standards and land use standards and then you could just do anything because you you've built them built the infrastructure that anything can go in there. They just go through the licensing process to be licensed.

It's authorized for the most intense use that it could be. It's kind of already in there in a simple way if you will. We don't we don't we're not overly gilding that. So that's a tool people can use right now. It's whether we want to sophisticate it further or not is is a good question. and whether they know that's that that's what they want. Yeah. And this is where I think we've done a lot of human work to make it work, but it's it's not parent code at all, but through working with us that we can usually get folks there. Maybe that's a category to put in there. It's flex space or just so people know it's a possibility. Yeah.

Yeah. I think that a lot too. I mean, particularly thinking a lot about we have a lot of businesses here that close seasonally who might want to have their restaurant not just sit unused for a month where if they could be making some sort of, you know, rental income on that for another business that could operate in that space in the interim or for events or things like that. I mean, that that it's a very Moab kind of thing. So I do think having something that accounts for that formally in the code would be cool. Okay.

I know we're going off in this sort of like sidetrack now, but well that no this it's good. It's good. But we want to move forward. This is we've taken up a lot of time, but

yeah. What else do you need from us tonight? I just want to keep an eye on time a little bit here. Yeah, I'll probably need to sit on what we've chatted about. And similarly to last time, I'll clean this up, make a list of more clear ass than last time as well. And then send that to you all as kind of homework for next time if that sounds good. Um, and then yeah,

so with that and Barry still being on the hook, I and then we never did come back to occupies, but I think it was sprinkled in nicely the whole time of how how these two will work together. Um, and there's a whole another tier with state licensing with the treasur's office, but we're usually they can make that work. The health and fire department

and health and fire. Yeah, the there's many tiers. I I I think more importantly though it is that these two things jive don't have to be the same but they have to dance. Um, the homework I want to throw out, and this is going to be where we're starting to get pretty philosophical, is the next time we meet, I would also like us to, I'm sorry, I would also like us to maybe move into what is a very simple but foundational question, which is what constitutes a dwelling?

Uh, yeah. So this will have could massive repercussions throughout the rest of the code. What is a dwelling? So right now to give you some context, it it is essentially it's a a three-legged stool if you will. A dwelling in just by definition uh is a habitation of space that includes basically sleeping, living and eating or excuse me sleeping, bathing, a bathroom, a bathroom, sanitation, a bathroom space, a living space, and an eating space. Now, sleeping and sanitation, there's some flex there. A toilet, um you know, within building standards, what else might be included there? Really, at the end of the day, what we're seeing, you can have as many toilets, at least in our code as we want right now, as many toilets as you want. But the number of kitchens, if you will, has kind of in its own unintentional context become the number of kitchens you have determines the number of dwellings you have. And what we found both on a uh a basis that is amplifying that is can a single dwelling have more than one kitchen and still just be one dwelling? Well, historically that's been true. Um, but what we've seen because of manipulations of occupancy, they are often divided and you turn one home into two really easily when you have two kitchens, which is why our current code says basically number of kitchens is one per dwelling.

End of the day, that's what it gets boiled down to most of the time. But we've we've also seen are wet bars or kitchen kitchenets don't qualify as a kitchen. You can have a kitchen and kitchenetses throughout the home. They It's still just one heating element space is basically the stove, too. You can have as many sinks as you want. So, it's one stove really. That's all it is. So, a kitchenette nowadays with the technology that we have, it's easy for people to illegally convert those kitchenets of a basement that was well, oh, this is our movie room and we've got a little kitchenet bar down there and it's pretty fun to build popcorn in the microwave. soon they close the door off between the the upstairs and the downstairs and they build out that kitchen that somebody's got a heat plate or other things or illegal dangerous improvements and we have an illegal dwelling. So, we've seen a runaway effect with how dwellings are defined versus loopholes in the community. people are are are occupying spaces, satellite living spaces or even internal living spaces that are we are is what we're seeing actually a single dwelling or not. Mhm.

So, this is I've really kind of cracked open the philosophy of this already, but um would like you to maybe go look at our definition for dwelling and think about what's out there in the community that makes sense of what what is the minimum qualification for a doicile in your opinion. Um it could be a three-legged stool, could be a five leg stool, it could just be one thing, which is kind of what our code ended up being. It talks about kind of three, but at the end of the day, really it's an heating element. It's a I hate to put this out in the world, but basically you put you put a stove in and now you have a dwelling according to the code. I would also add what is a what is not a doile.

Sure. Thank you. What is and what is not a doile? is what that will help us do is when we especially when we have new proposals for in in low residential zones the R2 zone R1 zone where it's single family house but that we see that they've created spaces in that home that can only be accessed from the exterior. They have a wet bar. They have the makings of a dwelling that is maybe 500 square feet or whatever within the home. Um, has all the makings of a dwelling except a stove. It has a sink, it has kitchen top, it has a bedroom, it has a bathroom, it has all the things in an exterior door. But because of the way our code is defined, that's not a separate dwelling. That's just that's a room. That's a bedroom. Um, which if we're using things uh honestly, sure. Okay. you're you're that's how your family wants to choose to construct their home or whatever it is. Uh but we're seeing is after you sell it and then even maybe after the person after that sells it, they're going to be leasing that out as a separate dwelling and that person could be modifying it to make it really unsafe. So, this is all stemming from a place of safety and illegal modifications. But, um did I over did I over talk this one?

No, okay, that's the homework. What what what does constitute a dwelling? What doesn't? Um, so that'll be a little bit more phil where the heart is under.

I mean that we kind of joke about that, but that's literally I mean when we're looking at we're looking at this and I don't feel like I've articul articulated it well. I think we can refine it a bit f further. Is it necessary to have a full active heating element range stove to be home? I would say no. It's but this is kind of like how we define you know what is a household. It's the same type of philosophical debate. What is a household? What is a family? It's the same that's the same nature of the question but because it has building um

contingencies in there. I think we do need to explore that. So thank you Barry for being here for that. Well, that's something again with Barry, I think we're going to include him in that discussion because that's a very foundational thing for us to building code questions. There's all that for sure.

Yeah. Here we go. Exciting. All right. Fabulous. Okay. Uh next future agenda items. So, uh, our next meeting is going to be January 29th. Uh, if we remember the urban wildland interface that'll be coming back to us, um, with a possible recommendation of adoption of the state's plan and the adoption of the MOAB specific map. Um that recommendation to city council will be coming to you guys on the 29th. Um and also uh the Amasa preliminary plan and plat will also be in front of you on the 29th. And

why are we meeting the 29th? was that that was the okay because of Amasa's I didn't have it written down which is my bad their need to go to city council before us uh for their development agreement still getting that tied up with city council um and that needed to get done before we could do our work which is ironic because then the WOOI got bumped because they needed us to have it before it went to take castle next week Yeah. Yeah. But this is what I think we're we're happy with the triage of of our our items. So, no meeting on the 22nd. Correct. No meeting on the 29th. Yep.

Cool. And one more thing. And one more thing, uh, planning commission's vacancy is right. I know I have encouraged a few people to apply. Did you see how many applications the county had? Yeah, I reached out to some of those people and told them to apply for the city planning commission. I was like, I know you live in the city. [laughter] Wonderful. Yeah, they had quite a We're not flashy, but we do cool stuff. Come on. Yeah, that's a well put. Yeah, because I think that's what we're not boring. Like I can imagine there's a lot of drama because there's a lot of things happening.

There's a lot of drama. A lot of Okay. I was trying to be kind, but yes, we have maybe less of that. We have many other things. Yes. That are We have Barry. Yeah. Barry. Okay, then I take back my there's not a lot of job. [laughter] No, I Yes, folks listening. No, I specifically was like, "Oh, look at all these people who applied for the county. Let me reach out to some of them and see if they want to apply to be the city." So,

our process is much less rigorous as well. You write a letter of interest to the mayor. She considers it. She will call you and chat. uh she will chat with us to see what we think. Um and then uh you just have to be approved. The mayor's recommendation just has to be approved by city council. So it's very it's very non-controversial. Yeah, I would say. Yeah. Yeah. Much better. Totally. Yeah. Miles is missed. Yeah. I have a feeling he'll be back. Yes. Sitting out there. Yes.

Um awesome. Okay. Uh, I will adjourn this meeting at 7:58 p.m. Thank you. Thanks, Carolyn, for attending um remotely. We appreciate it. Of course. Thanks for allowing it. Yeah. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.