Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Still trying to stream. Okay. Says it's being live streamed. Okay. There's a online ticker that but it'll loading. Okay, that makes sense. But yeah,

we are good to go. All right. I will call to order this February 12th, 2026 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6:04 p.m. Uh, in attendance this evening, we have city staff Kelsey Garcia, Johanna Blanco, Corey Sherliff, Alexi Lamb, our city council liaison, Miles Loftton, former planning commissioner. Uh, and from the planning commission member, we have our new member Steve Mccclure. Welcome.

Thank you. uh myself, Kai Marinfeld, Jill Tatton, and then Shaylee Bryant is joining us remotely. Um, awesome. Yay. We have our new planning commission member. So, uh, let's welcome him. Uh, first item of business is citizens to be heard. I don't think we got anything for citizens to be heard. Are you all here for an item on the agenda? Okay, great. All right. Oscar Nhouse present. Uh, all right. Uh, first item of business is approval of our minutes from our last meeting, which was way back at the beginning of January. Um, that was January 8th. If, uh, Shaye and Jill, if y'all have had a chance to look that over, if there's any corrections, we'll have to do without Eagle Eye. Carolyn today.

I like that. I don't see anything. Yeah, same. Um, so we can entertain a motion. Um, Steve, you were not at that meeting, but it is okay to vote yay or nay or abstain. It's totally up to you. Um, it's really just we're voting to make sure that the minutes accurately reflect what your meeting was. Thank you. Um, Shaylee Reginel, I will entertain a motion if you'd like. I will go ahead and make a motion to approve the minutes from the January 8th, 2026 meeting. All right, there's a motion. I second it.

And a second from Shaye. Uh, any discussion? Okay. All in favor of approving our minutes from the January 8th meeting say I. I. I.

Okay. Uh, minutes approved. 40. All right. Next, we have a public hearing this evening, which is a public hearing consideration and possible recommendation of Moab City Council Ordinance 20263, an ordinance enacting section 15.08.011 under title 15, chapter 15.08 of the Moab Municipal Code to adopt the 2006 edition of the Utah Wildland Urban Interface Code. Uh, this is item four on our agenda. What we will do is we will open the public hearing um have our presentation from city staff um have discussion leave the public hearing open until we're done with that if that works for staff.

Okay. I will open the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Hi Alexi. Hello. Would you introduce yourself please? Yes. I am Alexi Lamb director of strategic initiatives and sustainability. And uh what my plan is is to go through some of this will be familiar from previous presentations, but to just go through the basics of what this is a hearing for. Uh and I would be happy to answer questions as well. Great. Thank you.

Okay. Well, we're going to try opening the presentation again. Wouldn't be a planning commission meeting without technical diff.

We didn't have a blank presentation. Okay, looks like it's working now. Okay, here it is. Um, so the first thing we have here is kind of the history of this. Uh, so specifically we're talking about meeting the requirements of House Bill 48. It was signed by the governor in March. Um, however, a lot of the preparation for implementing it took up a lot of the year and it wasn't until October that it was uh being reviewed here at the city. Uh in that time we consulted with the city attorney uh attended a public meeting with forest fire state lands in November. Uh the state of Utah posted their high-risk map in December of this year and we had a couple planning commission discussions prior to that because I think it was released mid to late month. Uh then in January we um were starting to get a better grasp on all of the maps that were available. We'll go over some of those tonight. Uh discussed it with M Valley Fire Department, Grand County Emergency Management, Rimtom uh in addition to the attorney. Uh and then uh meanwhile, we were also doing other fire preparedness stuff uh with the plan. Uh now uh in February, we're actually considering the required code. I'll talk a little bit about more about those requirements and um if possibly recommended this will eventually go to city council. So to start with what this is about uh with fires in urban areas throughout the country, the state legislature was concerned about danger in the wildland urban interface which is the

intersection of things that are very flammable and natural and also things that are flammable and urban uh which you know creates risk in in urban areas. So that's where HB48 came from and then it outlined a number of responsibilities. Uh what we're focused on in particular is the responsibilities of the city. We are required to adopt their version of a 2006 code. That is something that we need to do. What we are allowed to decide is where it applies. So the code is set um and the things in it. I'll talk a little about what's in it. And then we are also considering what kind of application we want of this like for the code. So the code um this is a summary. It's I think a 38 page building code. Uh so it requires new construction to use fire rated materials provide water supply and access establish defensible space especially this would require uh landscaping uh to be compliant and managing vegetation. Existing construction get pulled into this if they start changing things. So, building new additions or construction, uh updating a roof, um some other things like adding fire arresters to fireplaces, establishing the defensible space around the building, uh and also monitoring unsafe conditions and changing those. So, those are the primary things that this code would do. Um and from there, we get to decide where to apply it. So uh there's a different tools that we have. Um this code is one of them. Uh it is a pretty high barrier uh or pretty high threshold uh for people to comply in terms of cost and

time and other things that like resources to come into compliance. So that's the state code. There are also options to do things like a city code or education. and they wouldn't necessarily be in place but in addition to to the state code. Uh and then we get to decide where those things apply. So some places might be high risk and that's where we would see the highest fire danger and they might merit the most preparation. Moderate risk somewhere in the middle and then some places might be lower risk and need less intervention. So from here we go to the maps. There are several maps. I'm going to just show you a few of them. This is the one that the state adopted for our high-risk areas. So the state is going to use this map for what was in that previous slide is state responsibilities. We are not required to use this map and in fact when we met with the fire department rimtorem uh emergency management and there's a general consensus that this map is not accurate uh to where our actual fire risk is. uh this is those areas and also the structural uh exposure score from the state. Um as far as their recommendations, I think that for things that are at higher risk on this map are things that we should designate. But again, there's consensus this is not really accurate for the level of risk that we see. And based on uh requests from previous planning commission's meetings, uh our GIS specialist Nick put together a historic fire map. So this is where we're actually experiencing fire risk or fire danger in the past. Uh it does not align with the risk map that we saw from the state. And in our recently adopted uh community wildfire preparedness plan, this was the map that rimtore put together, which aligns

better with where we actually have seen fires, which is along the creek and in the slooh. So that is a long way to get around to. Our recommendation for what to put on a map for the application of the Utah wildland urban interface code is uh not to identify any properties at this time in the city limits. um and to continue to do some research and discussion on what levels of preparedness are appropriate for different areas in the city. But at this time and in consultation with other stakeholders in the community, we don't think it's appropriate right now for anywhere in the lab. So have the code but no actual maps or

yeah essentially a blank map for now. Uh it is recommended that we continue like we continuously update this from the state. They recommend every three years. We could do it as often as we want. So if we uh decide that it be is appropriate at different locations, then we can always update the map.

Sounds good. Oops. I think it says 2006. It is. It is a 2006 code. Oh, it is. Okay. Yeah. They have not updated. My understanding is that there is an update to the code coming up soon. um but they have not updated the code and that also might be something we would consider if the state updates the code it might then be better matched to the kind of risk that we're seeing in Moab.

Awesome. Okay. Thanks for the presentation.

All right. Uh, anything else from staff, Corey, Joanna, anybody additions? All right. So, um, in our packet, uh, on the agenda summary, um, there's a background, a list of exhibits, and then there'll be a recommended motion, which is very nice of staff to write that out for us. We did that. Um, so when we have something on the agenda, having the recommended motion is nice. You can always amend that. Um, make changes as we see fit based on discussion. Uh, but yeah, I will, we're still in the public hearing right now for what Alexi just presented for this potential adoption um of a new ordinance enacting the Wildland Urban Interface Code. Uh, any comments from anyone, Jill?

No. is very well presented. Yeah. So, Charlie, no, ma'am. Sorry, I said no. No, I we could see you. Okay.

Um, yeah, same. You know, we discussed this at previous meetings. Um, I think your explanation for why we're not adopting any specific or excuse me, identifying any specific properties makes sense so far. are not to say that there aren't things, but I do think it is, you know, like like a flood zone, like any sort of high-risk classification. I do think we should be extremely careful before um identifying properties that that applies to because that obviously will have an impact on on property owners. So, um yeah, I think it makes sense to me. Anyone want to make uh I will actually close the public hearing now at 6:17 p.m. and then we can continue discussion or hear a potential motion and move on.

Jill, well, I'll go ahead and make a motion. I move to posit posit I'm sorry put that a little closer. positively recommend approval of the Moab City Council Ordinance 2026-03, an ordinance enacting section 15.08.011 under title 15, chapter 15.08 of the Moab Municipal Code to adopt the 2006 edition of the Utah Wildland Urban Interface Code. Fabulous. All right, we have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? Second. I Oh, go ahead. He beat you to it, Chan. He did so fast.

Okay, we have a motion from Jill, a second from Steve. Any further discussion? Okay. Uh, all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. I. I. All right, that was an I from Shaye as well. All right. Uh, motion passes 4. Thank you everyone. Moving along and thank you, Alexi. Okay. Um our first action item of the evening which is 5.1 consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 032026.

Uh that's confusing. It's a resolution and the ordinance we just did was the same number. Um, resolution 032026, a resolution approving a preliminary plat for the Amasa Apartments for property located at 57 Cane Creek Boulevard, Moab, Utah, 84532. All right. Um, who is Johanna? Are you presenting on this? Excellent. All right, take it away.

Okay. Um, we might might remember this project from their uh DA recommendation that we just had at our last meeting. This is at 57 West King Creek. Um property owner is Amasa Holdings. Um we are in the R3 zone. A little background on this. Um Amanda Dylan, our applicant, submitted the town home plat application in September. It's been going through DRT review um and through the development agreement that we just recommended a custom process of approval has been established that makes uh you guys the approval body. Um so this custom process looks like the preliminary plans and plat come to you all for approval and then the final plans and plat are administratively approved um through the planning coordinator and then if there are any amendments to the preliminary it will come back to you guys. So now you can reference your hard copies. Um the hard copy is what we will be um hoping to approve today, not what was in your packets.

Okay. Um differences include from what was in your packet. Um there's a slight change um in the note under the legend um word change from something to des um it escapes me now. Yes, it's regarding the public utility easement and the mechanism for the plat. Sorry,

please. uh public utility easement um being dedicated on the plat itself through that mechanism in the final plat um but it needs to obviously be represented as well in the preliminary across the board and consistently with that um a few minor changes in the specific language from occupy to dedicated which is uh I think appropriate um and then additionally that the well I'll let you go on that was that was the note change

thank you for joing my memory. And then um also um in the plat in your packet, the note um said anything not occupied by buildings or roads um is part of this public utility easement. Now we are showing the buildings and roads that are going to be built. Um so that those are excluded from the public utility agreement. Um, everybody who is party to that easement has now approved that change. Okay. So, this preliminary plat meets all the standards um in our subdivision code. Um, the matrix of approval was included in your packet. Um, and they've also been working through uh the DRT rounds of review. So, not only is their preliminary plat ready, their final plat is ready.

All right, we'll be approving that right after you guys are done with your decision. And that is the end of my briefing. We do have the applicants here or if you have any more questions for me. I don't have any questions. Straightforward and this has been a long time coming. Um do you want to come up and if there's anything to add or if we have questions it's often nice to hear from the applicants. Pull a pull an extra chair. Yeah. Perfect. Whatever. Yeah. Give him the hard one.

So I told Sorry. My name is Ivan Carol working with MASA Apartments. Amanda Dylan had an event uh at home today, so she couldn't make it. This is Claudia Loisa. Um I told Claudia earlier today that even if we don't need to present anything, I do want it publicly known that we have put these guys through the ringer and they have been troopers. Um doing affordable housing is always a difficult thing. Um, having to work in a multi-phase project with multiple lenders and investors is a nightmare for anybody. It includes way too many attorneys um that constantly want to change things and Corey and Johanna and Nathan have been amazing to get to help out. So, want that publicly known to the city that they're awesome. And that's really all I had to say for tonight, but happy to answer questions. I appreciate the kudos for our staff who are excellent. Um, and I also don't ever want too many attorneys.

I am an um, uh, let's see. Uh, any questions from anyone for the applicants or comments? Shaylee, Steve, Jill? No, with the presentation whenever that was. Um,

yeah, it's great to see the layout of what it's finally going to look like. It's exciting. I know that you all went to great lengths to work with the adjacent property owners in the neighborhood. I I have I have friends and family that live over in that area and I they they all spoke highly of how you um all informed the community and involved them. And I think that this is sort of a hopefully a case study about how density and affordable housing are not the issue that people have. It's the community involvement perspective that hopefully we're showing that people adjacent properties don't have an issue with this kind of development. It's really just the process.

And so thank you all for going to that link. I know that added probably many more steps on top of what you were already doing, but hopefully it helped prevent some issues or controversy uh along the way. So thank you. I think it was really worth it.

Um, and I'm excited to see this to see this project move forward. Um, I will note and we noted this last time we talked about this project as well, that Shaye and I are both on the board of the Moab Area Community Land Trust, which is the other half of your LITC um application for the project. I know for um apartments out at a Royo crossing that is not a financial interest but that is an interest that we have. So I feel comfortable just noting that for the record. Um I don't think we need to recuse ourselves under our our rules but I just wanted that noted for the record. Um that we we do have involvement as board members with mult with the other component um of this project. So, Shaylee, anything to add? Does that work for you?

Yep, I agree wholeheartedly. All right. Um, yeah. So, we've got the preliminary plat. Um, as usual, in the agenda summary, there is a recommended motion. Um, if someone would like to take a crack at it, I'll go ahead and make the motion um to move. I move that the city planning city of Moab planning commission approve planning resolution number 03-2026 a resolution approving a preliminary plat for the Amasa apartments for property located at 57 King Creek Boulevard Moab Utah 84532.

All right, we have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? I second it was like I don't know. She was ready that time. All right, we've got a motion from Jill, a second from Shaye. Um, any further discussion or questions for our applicants. I'm really excited to see this project. Yeah. So, thank you guys. That's exactly what I was about to say. I'm I'm so excited to see this project happening and we're excited to get it going. Long time coming in such an important important spot. Um, you know, they're already and just the phasing everything. I just can't speak highly enough for how you guys plan this. I think it's very cool. Um, all right. Uh all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I.

I.

I. All right. Uh the preliminary plat is approved for to zero. Moving on to the next item which is also you guys if you want to stay at the dis um is 5.2 consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 022026. A resolution approving a preliminary site plan for the Amasa Apartments for property located at 57 Cane Creek Boulevard, Moab, Utah 84532. Back to you. Okie do. We've got something very, very similar, so I'm going to skip through um what we just talked about. Um this process started when they submitted their site plan application in August. Again, it's been through DRT review. we're ready to approve their final um and we have the same custom approval process that has delivered this preliminary plan to you guys today. Um here we have the preliminary plan and this one is exactly the same as what was in your packet. Um, it meets all the standards set out in our site plan code. Um, and that is it.

Okay, that was easy.

All right, any other comments about the site plan? the mic. Yeah, keep switch. No, I think that um the only thing we wanted to note here was um I know that the city has just passed a um EV charging ordinance I think as of a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month now.

Um but the site is striving for net zero. So um we we will have at least two active EV chargers and then two additional that will be ready to build. um and solar array that is going to be large enough to offset over 100% of the energy usage. So, um we're looking forward to yeah, just the potential of being able to contribute to the grid and make it a more resilient um site. Um I think that's the one thing that we meant to share last time that we didn't get to as much. So, um it's it's special for us obviously for continuing to build carbon neutral, but I think for a place like Moab especially, um we're um trying to leave things better than we found it. So,

cool. That's awesome. Especially because that does not apply to them as they were vested prior to the ordinance. So, well done. I love seeing that. That's great. Um, cool. Thank you for noting that. I was not aware. Um, all right. Straightforward. Once again, we had our plat, we have our site plan. Who would like to make a motion? Go ahead, Joe.

Okay. Alrighty. I move that the city of Moab Planning Commission conditionally approve planning resolution number 02-2026. A resolution approving a preliminary site plan for the Amasa Apartments or property located at 57 King Creek Boulevard, Moab, Utah 84532. All right, we have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? Did I miss something? Yeah, I'm gonna have you redo that. I have uh accidentally left a conditionally in there. Um, it's just a resolution. Oh, there I'm like that. So, just take the commission or conditionally out. Yep.

Okay. So, I'll try that again. I know that the city of Moab Planning Commission approved planning resolution number 02-2026. A resolution approving a preliminary site plan for the Amasa Apartments Prop for property located at 57 Can Creek Boulevard, Moab, Utah 84532. Nice. All right, we have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? Second. All right, a second from Steve like this. Um uh any discussion or questions for the applicants while we've got them here? All right. Um, all in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. I.

I. All right. Uh, preliminary site plan passes 4. Thank you all so much. Good luck with the next the next steps. Thank you. Um, thank you. Okay. Now, this is where we insert. I actually remembered. I remember this one. No. All right. Where is that? Here. Let me find that.

Johanna addendum. There it is. Okay. There was an addendum to our uh previous agenda. Um we are adding an item. Uh this is now going to be item one on the agenda as it's identified which we are putting.

Yeah. after action items 5.1 and 5.2 um which is consideration and possible uh and we're back to you guys. Sorry I dismissed you early. My apologies. Um consideration and possible recommendation of approval of a phase one development agreement for 57 West Cane Creek Boulevard, parcel 0100001 02000 between Amasa Apartments LLC and the city of Moab, Utah. Um, so this is the same property in question as the last two items. Um, inserting it between agenda items 5.2 and 5.3. Okay, we're ready. Yes. So, this um this has been uh public noticed as a public hearing. um it didn't make it on the addendum that it was a hearing uh with formatting uh that was challenging and that's why it's also 1.1 on there. Um but this is a public hearing as well. Was that noticed as a public hearing 10 days ago

separately? Yeah. Okay. I don't love that. But if we're meeting requirements. Okay. Okay. Noting that this is a public hearing even though it's not written that way on our agenda. So I guess there's two yeah two items and given the pre-noticing and then later noticing sorry jump in is um through the state we've noticed sufficiently for the public hearing element and then the action item which usually are joined on your agenda

um but as this was brought in through as an addendum we will typically show those on your agenda separately um but they have been sufficiently noticed according to the state okay but it is clunky the way the way the addendum and our our agenda match up. So, um it would be I think appropriate to open the public hearing uh have presentation, close public hearing and then commence to what would be the action item. Okay. As opposed to the opening of the public hearings, if that makes sense. It's all standard practice, but you're right. It is showing. Cool. I just want to make sure that we're you're right

totally above board with everything. Um, I understand mistakes happen. I I too I don't know how you guys manage all this stuff, frankly. Um, okay, great. That said, I will open the public hearing on this item, consideration and possible recommendation of the phase one development agreement for the Amasa Apartments at 6:36 p.m. We can have a presentation from staff while the public hearing is open.

Wonderful. Okay, so we are still at 57 West Crane Creek. Um, as you remember our global um, in the document mentioned omnibus original anywhere you like to slice it, the development agreement that has already been approved um, was done so on January 27th. And in that agreement, um, there's provisions that give the applicant the option to, uh, negotiate a subsequent DA for each of the three phases. Um, when when a subsequent DA is agreed upon, the lots that are assigned to that phase will be pulled from that global DA. Um and then they have their own set special agreement um that will be recorded when their plat is recorded. So that's what we're doing tonight. Um recommending to city council approval for this subsequent phase one DA. Um so the city concessions in this DA are a reduction of five feet from the 15t setback um in the R3 zone and a waiver of the um active employment household requirements that are normally required in the R3 zone in exchange for 50 units that are deed restricted. Got it.

Um so as said before in the original DA this process of subsequent DAS was outlined and approved. Um the differences between these two DAs are there's different parties. Um first DA was between the city and Amasa Holdings. This agreement is between the city and Amasa Apartments LLC. Um there's a section in there that removes the lots assigned to phase one. Um removes them from the previous agreement and now they stand alone in this agreement. Um Oh yes. and all the uh process of approving the preliminary plan, it's all past tense now and in the recital section. Um we are still working a little bit. Um, I got some news a couple hours ago that maybe this is pretty settled now, but we're still working on language around uh sharing of common spaces and uh tying all the project phases together as they um are inseparable uh even if they have these separate agreements. Mhm.

Um and then our approved final or yes, our approved final plat and plan could not have been inserted beforehand because they weren't approved yet. Now we can insert those after approval. Um yes. So, these two last bullets will still need to be worked on and are going to be different than what is in your packet currently, but we um you still could make a recommendation to city council um to approve um this agreement uh given that we're going to come to a conclusion both parties on these things.

Got it. Okay. Um so like I said, city council is going to be the approval body on this and then when uh phase two comes, we'll be coming back likely for uh subsequent DA for phase two as well as phase three. Got it. Good job with that explanation. Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm just sort of like so you basically had a programmatic DA that the city council approved already and this is like the sight specific under one under that to put it in NEPA terms.

All right, cool. Okay, that makes sense to me. I think the terms of the development agreement certainly makes sense. we're getting asurances similar to the reasons that we have the uh the ah in place. Um and then also front setbacks I think is something the street adjacency I think that's fine as long as visibility is maintained for drivers and people on the street but I think things that pull it farther away from um the neighborhood the neighboring neighborhood um make sense. So there's my reasoning. Um let's see. Do we have a recommended motion?

Well, so it it just it does feel a little like convoluted like we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. Yeah. And we're trying to recommend approval when we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. Yes. Like is there a reason like I mean I know they want to get started on this project but do we want to move forward with with a recommendation prior to having some of these things answered? I what what does that where does that leave us when we're still in negotiation?

Yeah. No, I' I'd love to speak to some of those elements and then maybe we could even invite the applicants to speak to it a little bit if they want to as well. Uh but essentially is where we're at with this DA which is in all intensive terms uh subsequent certainly but also a bit to an extent not to be derogatory in this way but superfluous in that the global DA the omnibus DA was intact basically that was everything that the city needed was complete within that agreement. So the election for the project to move and advance this um phase specific DA which has some components where it in essence and if you read through the terms of that agreement ejects it in a sense from the global well that creates what in this group is tired of me talking about this but we're getting to basically counter compelling um positions that the the premise of us needing to maintain the overall entitlements of the site require everything stays tied. Yet from an investing and lending standpoint, it's essential that it is separated in its own right. So we're pulling apart at the seams of that. This DA navigates that for them so that essentially with the negotiations we've had, we've ensured that it is replicated in all ways. the city maintains and then also for the matter the lack of thirdparty beneficiary that would be housed like a typical HOA is otherwise represented by the conditions of this agreement. So there there will be that entity but they're not beholden to them outright that are specified definitions. So so to Shay's point um it's not so much that I think at this point we're we're bringing this to you in a sense of there aren't the pieces in place. It is the minutia of language in some of these sections. And I think we gave you guys a clean draft.

Yes. Which had basically the proposal from the applicants with what you're seeing is just cleanly incorporated language revisions from our attorney. So you're just seeing clean. It hasn't been fully adopted by them, which is why it's not we're considering it fully. It may amend slightly. Yeah. Is there confirming those amendments, but I think as of today Uhhuh. It is confirmed. Yeah, as of two hours ago, I haven't changed this presentation or had my brain caught up. But we have accepted our

down to the minute, which is why we came. So this what you're seeing, you have the entirety of the puzzle. This is it. It will not change from this point forward unless I mean maybe it could, but they would have to go before council and justify why it's different than the recommended version you're seeing. So, um, it it's it is absolutely convoluted and is absolutely one of the most complex documents I've worked on. This team that was not kidding when we've been I mean Johanna is on at a call at 7 a.m. this morning. We were on calls and emails through the night. if we're really trying to get this done because timing is absolutely of the essence and if we miss this threshold for this DA to be approved or at least recommended to get council's approval before March throws them into a whole series of financial implications of delaying another month um from their lending rate. So I hope that helps fill in the blanks of we this is atypical. We we're we've definitely bypassed our standards. Um, however, in this instance, this project is calling for us to go above and beyond that way to get it done in a timely manner forum.

Yep. Shaylee, did that answer your question? Yeah, I feel I feel like that makes more sense now. I just was like, why are we in a hurry? I mean, I know that we want to get it get it done, but yeah, I just felt like we moving it without all the information, but I get it. Awesome. Okay, that makes sense to me as well. And we'll likely see phase two at some point still under the global DA or sectioned out as well. Yeah, likely sectioned out. Okay, cool.

If you want to pop that recommended motion back up there. Okay. And this is a recommendation to city council because they are the final authority on this. Excellent.

Oh, yes. Good memory. Let's close the public hearing. Oh, yeah. You're right. We're in a public hearing. Gosh. Oh, my brain. All right. Thank you, Jill. Madame vice chair. Appreciate it. Uh, all right. I will close the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Thank you for the reminder. Um, okay.

Okay. I will now then make a motion to forward a positive recommendation of the approval of phase 1 development agreement for 57 West Canree Boulevard parcel 01- 01- 02000 between Amasa Apartments LLC in the city of Moab, Utah. Okay, we have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? I second it. Okay, a second from Shaye. Uh any further discussion? Thank you all for the explanation. Uh okay. All in favor of the motion say I. I.

I. Okay. Passes 4. Now we're done with you all. All right. Thank you. Um and hopefully that how we were doing that made sense to the public as well. Okay. Moving on now to item 5.3, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution 042026, a planning resolution approving the landscaping special exception request for property at 985 South Main, Moab, Utah 84532. Um this is the Maverick gas station and looks like we have um someone from Maverick on Zoom joining us. Welcome. Uh, all right,

Johanna, we're ready.

Okie do. Um, this is the South Maverick at 985 South Main. Our applicant today is Sarah Beckman. So, the Maverick uh applied for a building permit to expand its freezer. Um any expansion any building permit that is not an internal renovation triggers a general landscaping plan. When I was reviewing their general landscaping plan, everything looks perfect um except for their required number of street trees. Um so, um given their street frontage, they are required to have 19. On their plan, they have 13 trees that are either existing or are going to be uh provided. So today they're asking for an exception to six street trees. Here we can see their enormous frontage um on two fairly busy streets. One are most busy and then 400 East. Um I think we're all kind of familiar with this area. Um, so I'll move on. Here are you can see all of their existing and proposed trees as blogs on this one. Okay. So, their narrative, if you had time to read, goes into um pretty much obstructing visibility. Um, they have a

number of turnins. They're right on a corner. Um, and for those reasons, along with our code section stating that you cannot have a tree um, within 10 feet of a driveway or an intersection, it really limits where they can place a tree. Um, so I think they've done a good job trying. Um, and this is all the code sections that apply here. We got a one street tree. Every 40 feet they've got 760 feet of frontage, which gives them 19 trees. Um, and then that uh third bullet down is our regulations on where trees can be planted that's limiting them. Um, and then the fourth bullet down is you guys have the right to grant an exception. Um, alternatively, we can grant an exception. Um, or we can uh do a fee and loo situation for the trees. And that is my briefing.

I like it. Is there a staff recommendation about which one of those makes the most sense or um not stated? It's primarily a safety issue.

I'd say yeah. As someone who's almost been hit like four times in the Maverick parking lots, I you know, just really got to whip your toy trailer around as fast as humanly possible on the corner there. Um, yeah, that's definitely a safety concern. I think visibility being worse. And there's already I mean it's it it's a property that has a lot of street frontage I think is why there's so many required and there's already a lot on site. It's not like there's two trees

and they're asking for an exception for 15. So um you know I do think it's keeping in keeping with the general purpose of the code which was we don't want heat islands, we don't want big chunks of payment without some vegetative cover breaking it up. Um so uh as far as fee in loo our standard in the past what can you remind me what we've done in the past when we've given exceptions for street trees I know we've done that a couple times I know we did that with the water treatment plant right wasn't that one

may have been one I'm thinking more there was more recently a residential property received it um fortunately Alexis left us with the nice institutional memory on that one um I can't think of how we've framed our precedent for those Yeah, I'm just interested in keeping with what we've done. And you if you'd indul what would be the um

the factors you're looking to to navigate within that is with these guys and under the circumstances that they're applying the exception. Is it that we're looking I guess what is the question? What what you the question is if we grant some sort of exception or deviation is it appropriate to just grant a blanket exception saying for so waiver essentially a waiver in of a fee in l correct yeah um and from my perspective I think we have that but I don't know if we actually have enough precedence to say we've done it this way or can follow in practice what I would

seem would be appropriate is where um instances of the exception are where the standards and get it gets dangerous when I describe it this way, but we possibly run a foul of a regulatory takings element of basically we're prohibiting you from advancing with your use because our regulations don't actually work given that we're requiring you to have certain widths of access for your commercial standards yet you've applied trees at every possible interval you can to our standards yet you still don't come up. Yep. Versus another property that's their design is elective made it consequentially the fees may seem

or maybe just on the ground anyone can see like this probably doesn't make sense but it's not like there's two sections of code that are butdding up against each other. So for me that that's usually what I would measure these against. I think that is a good indication of where my head's at as well. Um, this is not just like, hey, we're realizing that like this is too many trees and you maybe can't see around the corner. It's like city code says that you can't have trees where you would need to have trees on the site. And I think that makes sense.

Um, my uh with that in mind, I feel like the other the factors maybe in the other direction would be that this is a large commercial property. it is not an individual residence homeowner where maybe that a small fee and loo would be ownorous to them or their project. This would be something where it might make sense to have a fee and loo in other instances. Um just stating that for the record.

I think I think another is sorry to interrupt was this is an existing conditions exception versus a new construction where again you have the some design flexibility. this is already in place and their building permit triggering it happens to also trigger this this new review whereas a new construction usually there's ways to design into y um so that's another maybe compelling argument towards a full exception versus the fee and loo but again the flue I think there it's purposeful it's it's in place to provide ability for the city to place the trees where we need them at the intervals that we've adopted but Um, so it is it's it's a

from a staff side hard to say what you know a hard recommendation would be I think because I see it as as impossibility of site design with existing code to me that would lend itself to a complete waiver. Um was the request for the full waiver was it? Yes. Okay.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. And again, it's a smaller percentage. There's already a lot of mature trees on site or maturing, I should say, however long the Maverick's been there. Um, it's not like, yes, six trees is not insignificant, but six trees and the balance of however many trees, 19. Yeah. Uh, 19 um is still the smaller end of the percentage. Mhm. So,

so can I ask a question on on these types of exceptions, is there like I know that in and I'm sorry I'm still super new to this. Um, but is there a way to be like like I know sometimes if if we if people can't put in a sidewalk and they're asking for a waiver that then we ask them to add funds to a to a future account that maybe we could add trees somewhere else and have some funding for it. That's the fee and Lou. Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. I was just like trying to remember.

Yeah. And like totally Shaye that that's the fee and Lou and again I think there's there's good reason for that to to keep with the code basically saying we're looking at town holistically on balance. We want the whole town to meet our landscaping requirements. Maybe every individual property in isolation doesn't but overall it does. I think that's in keeping with that which is good. Um, but yeah, I think like you said, Corey, my my brain is it's it seems to sort of be a sight constraint code conflicting parts of code and then also it's an existing property. Yeah, it's not a new development. Um, what were you just

I just had an aha of one of the my starting to work kind of subconscious. One of the exceptions that we did grant was for a duplex. And if you recall, it was just on B Lane. And when we were talking about that, it was more of a lands, it was a general landscaping, not street tree exception. But within that, it was basically saying, well, they are supplying the appropriate amount of plant material. It's just not within the regulatory area we would have otherwise required. They had it because of the compression or development envelope basically had the landscaping peel around the site. And as if we look at this landscaping plan, you can also see well they may not may not have uh all the street trees they have but they do have additional vegetation and trees surrounding the site which is again the whole premises to reduce heat island effect

in the right ofways. Yep. The landscaping provisions should typically uh through our buffering standards and screening standards accommodate for intervals of trees around the site but this wouldn't have been because it's commercial to commercial. Um, so they wouldn't have had a buffering standard here. So in theory, you could also look at this as they I don't know if you make it a factor of your approval as hey, let's make sure those trees don't go away tomorrow.

They're we're factoring th those five into this calc and you know potentially even the other internal trees is hey we're we're reallocating our designation if you remember. So that was a precedent piece that isn't apples to apples but we the commission has looked at sites in this way before to a little bit more sophistication of well the regulatory area may be in one place but we're we are acknowledging the overall site improvement. No, totally. And I am acknowledging the fact that there are those what seven trees that are immediately surrounding the building. Um the main building

aren't street trees, but I think are important to the site and keep with the reasons we have tree requirements. So this is up to the commission, but what an option of what you could think of because you're balancing a full waiver versus a fianl. Well, maybe a potential hybrid or um modification because that's when we've had to approach these is uh a motion of modification and the applicant can accept or reject that is we memorialize those trees as uh regulatory at this point because otherwise they're elective and they could go away tomorrow but we say hey we're willing to not require a fee and Lou in place of

memorializing those trees as a regulatory tree and will be uh adopted into approved So that's a a way you could balance those. It may be excessive. You may not feel the need to do that. You may feel just the full waiver given the standards that they have are sufficient. But um just throwing some tools out for you guys.

Yeah. Um because we do have the applicants online. Um I am curious if that would you know really gum up your um expansion plans if those trees that are adjacent to the building which aren't on the street frontage were to be essentially noted in whatever our um exception might be um as sort of being part of the reason for the exception being approved um if if we were to do that as a full waiver. So not have fe and loo but say something like grant the landscaping special exception um noting that the non street trees in the development envelope will remain or something like that. Um feel free to unmute yourself. Um hi my name is Beckman. I am the special projects manager and I have Becca with me as well. She's the development manager. Um, I think that is a fair exception. Our biggest concern, like you guys have said, is safety. So, even those new trees that we're proposing, um, if any of you feel that those are continued safety issues, we want to make sure that we're keeping that site as safe as possible. As you said, we've heard a lot of people struggle navigating that um, property. So, we appreciate the opportunity to review and accept this, but I we feel confident with the building trees as well that we would keep those in place.

Okay, that's great. I think that makes that easy. And yeah, to be clear that the the site issues I don't think are the trees. Uh I think it's just people with tourist brain. Um so it's just people pulling out of pumps, frankly. So, um Okay, thank you for that. Um, other planning commissioners, Shaylee, Steve, Jill, any thoughts or comments? No, I think you've asked some great questions and it's been um explained well.

I don't have a issue with it. I think the safety is is key to me. That that intersection of 400 is at an angle and there's just ugly things happen there. So, uh, less is more in my eyes. Definitely. Shay, any final thoughts?

Okay. Uh, because I think I'm going to mess with our recommended motion. I will take a crack at it. Um, okay. Give me a second here. As you're working towards that and thinking about that, if we're going to if we are going to uh memorialize the trees on the site, we'll want to make sure that we're specifying a specific plan as it's proposed, which could be the landscaping plan as shown in the packet. If there's trees in there that are to be excluded from this, we'll have to note that as well. Okay.

So, if we say all the trees except these, that works. Or you could say these four trees as expressed on this plan. Um because again there are some internal there are some peripheral. Yeah. Well there I don't think there's any plans to do anything with any of the existing trees, right? So it would probably be accurate to just make a blanket it which would be okay. I just what I want us to be careful of is internal to the development envelope say they need to another expansion. and they come back and now we have a fix where this tree is don't you dare touch this tree. Yeah. And we have to now rencept come back to planning commission for them to remove a tree that maybe we weren't worried about right now. Got it.

And maybe that's a fair check for them to have to come back if they choose to do that. It's going to be a heavy Yeah, we could do by number rather than placement. Sure, that could be the case. That's a 19 on the site. Um something of that. Yeah, that can give some flexibility too. Um I what I just don't want to do is pinch the developer though they have to back for planning commission every time they want to touch the So there's currently 19 on the site. Yeah, there's there's says 22. Oh, sorry. 14 15 16 22 trees existing. 18 22 existing trees. 19 would be required street ties but there are only 13.

Correct. Got it. Okay. or planned 13 as well. Planned I'm over complicating this. I I know I'm trying to think the the cleanest way to indicate. I'm sorry, but that this will help us greatly in the back of the house. For sure. No, no, no, no. I get it. Get clean like that. Could you put the uh the aerial back up?

Yeah. Okay. So, this is their landscaping plan. I could just note that keeping in keeping with the landscaping plan as shown in the packet, right? Okay. I think that's probably the easiest way to do it, which is fine because they're at the point where they're not amending this anymore. Okay. And

for the moment. Yeah. I mean, what what we see I mean example, I'm I'm sorry to belabor this. So you can see that um most of these trees are periphery to parking. But in theory, the development envelope, they could expand and maybe get rid of those two that are immediate to the northwest

off off there. You see that? Those would be the two that very likely, hey, we're going to expand on the envelope. We're going to get rid of it. So identify hey all the trees within this plan on the periphery excluding these two or you just say memorialized it is there and they come back for commission if they want to amend the landscaping plan. Uh I think the former option makes the most sense. Um, so saying all the trees currently indicated in their landscaping plan with the exception of the two that are immediately northwest of the Yeah, that would be an option. Uh, yeah. Everything else seems to be

either over an uh call recreation space. That'd be a little over or open space, but there is picnic tables on those that are to the uh southeast. And then those immediately to the north of the building are covering parking. So, the canopy is again effectively being responsible what it should be. Those other two are the ones I think that's reasonable just to not include them at all. And then if they do want to do any of the other trees, of course they can, but they can come back before commission. Those two trees, they could just not.

Okay. Okay. Uh, I move that the city of Moab Planning Commission approve planning resolution 042026, a planning resolution resolution approving the landscaping special exception request for property at 985 South Main Street, Moab, Utah 84532 with the added condition. Is it okay to call it a condition? No. With the modification?

Modification. Yeah, with the modification that the applicant's exception is conditioned on uh well I don't normally struggle off now. Yeah, I threw No, I threw myself off. trees within the plan is kind of where you're Yeah. that the save that trees currently indicated on the landscaping plan shown in the packet for the agenda today um remain on site with the exception of the two trees immediately northwest of the building. There it is.

Yep. Yep. So, as a modification Oh, we have modifications. We have the applicant. Oh, yeah. Becca, sorry.

No, you're okay. Thank you. Um, and I'm Becca Cookies. I'm the development manager on the same team that me and Sia work together and I appreciate y'all so much for going through this. It's fascinating to see how the city sees that we could potentially develop. One request that I would have just for the future of the site. This is an older building, which means that these trees are likely on the older side. If there's something happens in the future where a tree dies and we have to replace it, the idea of coming back to a planning commission because now our positions of the trees are like barked in stone essentially without changing that that that's more of like a facilities maintenance issue and I could see that potentially becoming a bigger issue than it needs to be. So I'm wondering if we could possibly amend the language just a teeny bit. Maybe we could if there's two trees that you absolutely have to have in a specific place. I think that's totally fine, but maybe otherwise we can just put like a number of trees and like in the general area just I'm just kind of thinking long term about this. Not necessarily what we're potentially going to develop. I don't foresee that happening, but just from the future of uh the health of this landscaping and potentially needing to replace something like that. I could see this becoming a really big problem in the future if the language uh is adapted too much or too precisely. Does that make sense?

That makes sense. And that would lend me to return to the other option probably which is just the number. Sure. Um so I'm gonna go back. Uh thank you for interrupting. Thank you for interrupting genuinely. I didn't want to get that whole motion out. Um okay. We're at 19 19 trees required. Yep. Yep. Yep.

Yep. Okay. All right. Let me try this again. I move that the city of MOA Planning Commission approved planning resolution 042026, a planning resolution approving the landscaping special exception request for property at 985 South Main Street, Moab, Utah 84532 with the modification that the applicant for the subject property will retain at all times 19 trees total on site. At least 19 trees total on site. Um that includes the required street trees as approved um with uh an exception for those six street trees that would otherwise be required. That should hopefully cover you guys. All right, there's my motion.

I second. All right, we have a have a second from Steve. Um uh any further discussion? Thanks for sticking with us everybody. U and comment towards the point of order. I'm glad we did that and I'm glad Becca has spoke up because that was my next point was going to say as it's modification it needs to become an acceptable modification or friendly amendment if you will. So I'm glad it naturally occurred that way. So I'm glad we reset. Um so nothing beyond that is that this took the appropriate and that captures the intent I think as well. It was not that the trees need to stay exactly where they are. It was just like, hey, this is a large property. It needs x amount of trees. Yeah. So,

um, and that I think does maintain the precedent the commission's had so far, at least in the most applicable we've had to date. Okay. Uh, there was a motion from me, a second from Steve. Uh, if there's no further discussion, we can vote. All those in favor of the motion with the modification on the table say I. I. I. All right. Motion passes 40 zero. Uh, thank you, Becca. Thank you, Sariah. Appreciate your input. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Appreciate it. Yeah. Good luck with the projects. Thank you.

Okay. Some patient applicants today.

Um, all right. Moving on. Our last second to last gosh. Uh 5.4 consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 052026 a planning resolution approving the parking special exception request for one parking space for the Bonjour eating establishment expansion on property located at 59 South Main Street Moab Utah A4532. Johanna, back to you. Okay. Um, so we've got the Bonjour expansion parking special exception. This is at uh 4 oh uh 590 sorry 59 South Main in the Dewys plaza. Um and our applicant is Courtney. So again the applicant submitted a building permit which triggered this. Um they are expanding Bonjour into a little bit of what is currently Gallery Moab. Um, so we are changing 423 square ft from Gallery Moab retail to Bonjour eating establishment. Um, so retail and eating establishment have two different parking calculations. Um, so down Here I have our calculations uh with the expansion of Bonjour moving into some of Gallery Moab. We've got that 423 square ft divided by 200 which is the eating establishment uh calculation and then we have the existing the 423 divided by 300 which is

the retail calculation. So when we find the difference we get.7 spaces. So they are required to have one more space and this request is for one one space. Um is everybody clear on the calculation side? Okay.

Okay. Here we have a we can see where they are if we don't know where Bonjour is and where um the art studio is. And then up here we have a closeup of where the space is that they're changing hands. Um I believe now we're going to be able to access Bonjour from Main Street. Cool. Oh, okay. So, I was trying to figure out where

um so this is an a bridged version of the narrative submitted by the applicant. Again, doing the calculations um driving home that the overall square footage of the building is not changing. We're just taken over a little bit. um and highlighting that they have uh well or will increase bicycle parking and that they are downtown right downtown impacted by the downtown dispersed parking plans. So,

um, yeah. Um, and then our two options are since they're in the C3 zone, we can accept it or we can uh do a B and L. Mhm. B&L is going to require a different meeting and a public hearing. Mhm. to go through that. Mhm. We do have the applicant today if you have any questions for him or

I don't have any questions. Okay. Wonderful. It's very straightforward. Yeah. Wonderful. My mind is that this is an existing property. It's not a new development. They're not again like we just did with landscaping. They're working within existing site constraints. There is that lot is kind of weird and strange. There are spaces in Dewy's lot. Um or I guess yeah uh but

it's also very nearby other parking downtown disperse parking. You can walk right across the corner of that lot to the info center parking lot which is massive. So, um, I personally don't have an issue with this. I'm excited they're expanding their space as I've fought for a table in that establishment before. So, yeah, very clear. Wonderful. I think we're I think we've been fairly permissive with parking exceptions in the downtown corridor in the past, too. So, I think it's in keeping with what we tend to do.

Yeah. I will say yeah typically and the precedent here is important and that felu should be applied equally uh through applicants. We have had new uses come in uh or what I consider new floor area expansions. Yep. Not just remodeling of floor areas or changes of uses where that feloo has been applied appropriately. Yep. uh in instances where it's a change of use without an expansion, I think the commission has now twice followed in suit, which is where it's sounding like we're going, which is just a full exception. Yep. Great.

All right. I will move that the city of Moa Planning Commission approve planning resolution number 052025. A planning resolution approving the parking special exception request for one parking space for the Bonjour on Maine eating establishment change of use on property located at 59 South Main Street, Moab, Utah 84532. I'll go ahead and second that. Oh, second motion from me, second from Jill. Uh any further discussion or questions for the applicant? Um Ben is here in chambers. It's awesome. One piece at a time. Yes, it is.

I didn't realize you own that building. So Well, and I I honestly think that that's such a cool area and that parking lot's already a struggle bus. Like Yeah. You know, like that's a great area to have it be walking from all the disperse parking that's been developed. And I mean that we're trying to make downtown feel more walk friendly. So yeah, totally. I agree completely, Shaylee. Okay. Um, all those in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. I. All right. Motion passes 40. Thank you very much.

Excited for the redevelopment. I'm good. You too.

Okay. Our last action item, right? Yes. Consider uh excuse me, item 5.5, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 06, 2026, planning resolution approving the buffering and screening special exception request for property at 1410 South Highway 191, Moab, Utah, 84532. Okay. So, today we have the Red Rock 2 um which is at 1410 South Highway 191. Um exception request for buffering and screening. Um this project, I realized we haven't seen this one yet. Um this is two apartment buildings with 60 units. Um 30 of which are going to be active employment households. Oh, exciting. Okay. Um so we are going through the DRT review cycle right now. They're currently on their second round. Um, and through that review process, we've realized we're running into um, some issues with buffering and screening. So, we've come to you in the middle of the review process to get these ironed out so that we can continue. Okay, this is their current landscaping plan. Everything is looking dandy um except for this uh buffering and screening element. I've added north and east and then we can infer the rest um because that comes into play a lot.

I'm going to be referring to uh each of the boundaries quite a lot. Um, oh, we'll come back to this after. Um, so the narrative goes, um, side byside what they're requesting and I will do the same in chart form. Okay. So buffering is made up of distance, plantings, and screenings. Um distance there is no exception request today. We're going to be observing the distances of 10 or 8 or 15 feet as required on each side. Um, so what we're asking for is a varied planting and screening requests on each side. So I'm going to do my best to go through this um succinctly. Um, on the northern boundary, no exception is required. We're going to do exactly what the what's required or above and beyond. um on the eastern boundary. Again, we're going to respect that distance. We are requesting that uh there's going to be plantings of trees and shrubs, but not in the number and spacing required by um the buffering standards. And then they are requesting no an ex full exemption from the screening on the southern boundary.

Um they are requesting that there's no tree requirement but they can meet the shrub requirement in the planting section. And then with the screening they are uh requesting a somewhat waiver um saying that they're going to build a concrete retaining wall that's going to be topped with a six-foot fence, but they'd like the 8 foot opaque screen requirement to be waved as the grading of that uh concrete wall is going to vary some and they don't want the 8 foot to be hard and fast as that moves along the boundary. Um on the western boundary they are requesting that there's no tree requirement but they will plant shrubs and then they are requesting a full exemption from the screening requirement which would have been 8 foot um opaque screen. Okay, we can well he's going to come back to all this but I'm going to keep going if that's okay. Okay, so the chart here is the standard and zone buffering requirements. We can see the top two rows are the tree requirements, canopy and then uh evergreen or ornamental. Um and we have some standard and we have some zone boundaries um mixed in. Some um boundaries are zone, some are standards and in that earlier chart we can see which is which. Um then we also have our shrub placement

um spacing and then we have our screen height also highlighted. So in the zone boundary, you'll notice everything's just a little bit more because we're uh abuing two properties that are residential and commercial. This um property is C4. So no matter the use, we're in a commercial zone. Okay. And then over to the left here, we have what's in code for your consideration. planning commission should consider these items when looking to uh do an exemption for buffering. And then below, what are your considerations for when doing an exception for screening? So, they're pretty similar. Um site characteristics like topography, um views, um noise, placement of parking. Okay, I think that's the majority of of it and I'd be suggestions to me if any of this was um complicated or uh you can't understand before we go to the applicants.

Can we go back to the map? Absolutely. The one before? Yeah. The one that has the northeast. Yeah. Yeah. So, north is going up up 191 and east. Okay. How many residents are on that north side? Any idea?

I'm sorry. The e the west side the north side is the highway. This left would be north. Yeah. On this map. No. So the images it's shown is corrective to the compass. So north directly up. Oh okay. So west. West. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What is it's just I mean it's it's residences. It's a individual single family property owner. Um is it residential behind it on the south? Zoned. Zoned. Residential. Yes.

Yes. So you've got residential residential commercial right highway basically. Yeah. Can you go back to the where it has it laid out? Um, next. Next. Yes. Well, so read reading their their request, the the big why here is because eventually he's hoping to expand this development. It Right.

Yes, absolutely. So, the um narrative goes into that the eastern boundary is going to is Red Rock Flats, the first phase. Um so, they're owned by the same people. They're going to be coming to you with a shared parking request. We have access easements. there's just multiple things that are connecting these two projects that it's uh pretty reasonable that an internal screening and buffering um may seem superfluous.

So, so just to like play devil's advocate, what happens if after this phase they decide to not continue on and sell that property and then we don't just devil's advocate and we don't meet these requirements. You know, we make a exception to move forward based on that that they're going to continue on and make it one big

development, but what if they don't? So when we sorry uh we've been talking to Ellen about the interconnectedness of these two properties and when we come for the shared parking agreement likely at one of our probably our next planning commission meeting we're going to uh have some sort of written statement from her that um the lot line is going to be dissolved. So uh these will become one ginormous lot imminently is what we have discussed with Ellen

if Yeah. Right.

That's right Jill. Y so yeah Jill's pointing out which properties. So if we were back at the vicinity map um we have the red highlighted property. It's the one immediately to the right. Um that is Red Rock Flats project one and this is Red Rock Flats 2 project two. Um but yeah and to the degree that Ellen chooses to or not comment on this is yeah there there are limitations in why they can't pursue that consolidation at this moment but it is um clearly then the intent and then the owner is willing to in in the form of an agreement um conditionally advance these things that the that they will upon that completion date of where it's an it becomes an option will consolidate So we feel comfortable continuing and negotiating under those terms given that we would have a formalized agreement. So that's not in place now

or is you know not as a part of this discussion. So if that were something the commission is feeling they would want or need as a part of this. We could make this a conditional approval that we continue to pursue that. um if we default or or unable to cure on that, it would probably be remanded back to the commission at that point. So, that's another whole legal analysis that we'd have to do. But,

well, I and I feel like I would I would lean more that direction of having an a conditional approval just so that you know we ensure that if you know things happen. So if if this were to change that then they would come back and and then have to do the correct screening and buffering at that point if for some reason the project doesn't happen the way that they intended to. Okay. Can I just I just want to interject. Is is it okay? Yeah. Just just introduce yourself if you wouldn't mind, Ellen. Thanks.

Yeah. I'm Ellen Weinstein. I'm the developer and the owner. Um Ryan is our architect. Um the second phase for which we're ask or we're requesting the the buffering um uh whatever's alleviation or mitigation um really can't exist without the first phase. So the second phase and this will probably come up in future meetings um is accessed over the first phase. It will have shared parking, shared amenities. Um so so all of the the maintenance office, the management office, the commercial and the access um to phase two will exist on phase one. So even if Shaye in the you know unusual event that we decided to sell that parcel it would be really restricted anyway because it it just wouldn't couldn't even function without having access to everything on phase one. And that was the and that then precipitated the request for the modification for the buffering because they really ultimately will be consolidated into one parcel and it is contemplated as one apartment complex. It was just purchased and developed in two phases. That that definitely helps. Um, as far as an explanation, I I still feel like just for doing it by the as much by the code as we can, having that a conditional approval of we would like that agreement in place is just my thoughts. I'm not sure how the rest of you guys feel. Johanna, can you I'll say my my main concern is with the western and the

southern bound I mean obviously um western and southern boundary a full exception to screening on the western boundary with a residential it's a zone boundary issue as well. Yeah, that it's my issue. You're correct. That's my fault. that is a um zone buffering and I think that they can speak to the natural topography of the site that's leading them to request that.

Yeah, Ellen, if you have um just an explanation for that. I think that and then the southern boundary, I know that's a vacant property right now, but it is residential and it is um you know, privately owned as well. I just want to make sure we're uh to those lower intensity uses and lower intensity zones wherever we can.

Yeah. Um well to the west it is we will have a I think a 10-ft or a large um concrete retaining wall and the the topography is pretty um varied and so putting up a 6 foot um or 8 foot opaque screen is just it's going to be difficult. um with the fence that we're using now on phase one works because that that topography is flat or flatter. Um but I think on phase two it's you know without getting into grading on somebody else's land. I I think it's just going to be difficult to meet that requirement and it's it's solely a a topographical issue, not our desire not to comply with the um screening requirements um to the north. Ryan, can you answer that a little better about why we're

North is fine. I don't care. south. So, um I think we're they're talking about the uh the west boundary which is the natural the west the west and the south

the na the natural wash is the west boundary and it's you know we don't like the idea of putting a fence along the top of that wash primarily um because of the the grading there but also just as a view item for our residents along that edge. Um, putting like an 8ft vinyl fence along the edge of this natural wash just doesn't it doesn't we don't like the looks of that as well as just with the you know the proximity to that. Um I I just hate putting a a fence along the top of the hill there. It just you know runs counterintuitive to trying to keep the natural landscape. um uh as native as we can along that boundary. Um along the south um there's just a big break in topography there. So, you know, we're putting in a retaining wall and it just tapers from uh east to west as it follows the contours of the land. We're not going over the 10-ft height that's, you know, mandated in the code. Um but it does get shorter than the 8t required in the in the ordinance. Um it doesn't seem, you know, necessary to put a fence along that boundary. Um because the grades continue to slope up. You know, they're at a peak of like, you know, we're 14 ft in the ground uh over towards the east corner and then it gradually tapers down towards the wash as you head to the east. Um, so I don't feel like the screening is should be necessary there because it's basically screened by the land itself. Um, that west side, you know, that one's um, just more the topography.

There's like a change in grade, you know, 6 to 8 ft as it drops down into the natural wash. And um we were kind of feeling like that uh satisfied the the screening requirement in itself and just the grades um and didn't like the idea of plopping a vinyl fence on top of that natural grade change essentially. In the north side is the street and we're providing you know the street trees as is required in the the ordinance. Exhibit 4, the second page of exhibit 4 in your packets has a it's not too angled, so you can't see um the wash in all of its glory, but it it's like uh labeled and you can kind of see from the bird's eye view um a little bit more of what he's talking about than I have in my presentation.

I Yeah, it may be unnecessary. Uh but we do have uh through our Google Earth and GIS I can rotate our axion so I can actually see in 3D view from Google Earth so I can show that if it's helpful may may not be um yeah I think it's up to where the commission wants to go with this. I do think it's um important that the commission fully understand what it is that's being proposed though because it is complicated. So make just make sure we're we're happy to help you walk through whatever you need to be walked through. Um but if you understand what do you mean slope? What do you mean wash? Um let's ensure before you make any moves.

Yes, please.

Let's let's make sure um let's see here. Sorry. I am not on the Zoom so it's going to take me just a moment to get logged in to get access and shared it here. Okay, so this is more or less looking generally south. Uh, so we can see the highway at the bottom end of the screen. Uh, from this obviously it's quite a bit dated. Um, is the aerial photos when we get into 3D imagery, but uh, more or less you can see my cursor here. This is the, uh, Red Rock one

project property. This would be the Red Rock 2 project property. So in this there there is a natural aoyo wash drainage that comes from the uphill property and then uh more or less straddles pretty close to exactly on that boundary line. It it does move west and east a touch uh but then eventually does curve and curl out um to the highway there through this property. So you know and the more I start to tilt this the wonkier the pixelation gets. So, this is about as um horizontal as we get without it getting too wonky, but we'll give it a try. Maybe we'll get rid of the parcels. That might help prevent it. Get too washed out here. Whoa.

Yeah, that's not that didn't take long. That totally didn't help. What do you mean? High detail on Moa Google Earth in Moab, Utah is not a high priority for Google. Oh, how we got the ocean somehow. But anyway, wow. Where I

mean, Corey, that that image gave you a sense of how there's a pretty drastic grade change where this lot meet meets Highway 191. And I just, you know, I just cringe at the idea that we're going to put a white vinyl fence or or any kind of fence that's coming out to intersect the ride of way, you know, that's up in the air, you know, about 15 to 18 ft, you know, right on the edge of that that, you know, wash as we're calling it. Um, and just kind of ending it there. Um um so so

thank you Ryan. Yeah, the only addition I might make to that is that it is unique in an instance that along the two boundaries that are being proposed, one of these boundaries, the west, this site will for all intents and purposes be elevated above that to the west and the rear the the further south property is obviously going to be up above. But I think what we're saying is on the property to the south they're proposing what is basically a standard screening fence, six foot. Is that correct? or at least it's variable through that rear property. Or am I off? That's incorrect. Uh yeah, for the west west is total exception. Our total exception and the south we have a

partial retaining wall and then six foot

that's on top. Um so when we're thinking about what it is that these screening standards were uh adopted to provide is mitigation of uh variable impact of intensities. So interesting enough that the zone boundary was really meant to be commercial zones with commercial uses against residential uses. So the fact that this is residential against other residential that there just happens to be a commercial zone is a bit of a uh an inaccuracy and maybe on original intent. That being said though this is a largecale residential project um in a zomadri that could you know understandably have mixed elements in it. It's not proposed at this this time. Um, so I guess what I'm getting at is from residential to residential is what we might see anywhere else. A six-foot screening and standard buffering standards would be typical. So along that south boundary, we're it doesn't seem to be except for the trees and um vegetative buffering elements uh that far off. The west boundary however though is plateaued above and so how that's to be perceived by the planning commission while you know Ryan did I think articulate it we'd hate to have these pokes having to park and basically there's a vinyl fence where there could be basically a natural decline down into this wash and it it just kind of flows naturally but I think the commission your job is to consider are the impacts on the neighbors being mitigated appropriately through these exceptions and that might be the natural plateau or elevation does that. I'm not sure what your response is to that, but I'm I'm describing this accur accurately, right? The grading will be well above the neighbor. So, we have um

yeah, occupancies happening on the site that won't be screened that are up above eye level. Whether that's screened sufficiently by the rise or not, that those are the considerations I'd like you to focus on. Can you Jo Johanna address the tree exception for the western boundary? I know I get I understand the opaque screening but talk to me about the trees.

Yeah. So in their narrative and in my conversations with Ryan um he is saying that the the slope of the wash is such that trees wouldn't be as suitable as native shrubs. It's it's this I'm so sorry Johanna I was looking at a Google Google Maps image. Can you say that again? I Yes. the slopes that are caused by the wash. Yeah. Make it less suitable for trees. Okay. And I think that native shrubs would thrive more. Okay.

If you'd like, I've gotten the site back in 3D. Sure. We had to fly in from the uh Joanna is still sharing from me Pacific somewhere. Okay. Here we go. So, I've taken the partial boundaries off because they get really broad like in the bottom left there. They kind of disrupt the the imagery. And again, this is not this is not perfect. It's again just the but it gives an idea of representation of the plateau that we're on that eventually equals out by the near the end of the property. And then as this is graded, you'll probably have again this rise

to the rear. Um that will have retaining section and then the six foot wall on top. But through here is just basically proposed to remain as at grade which is an interesting situation. This property it's hard to say it's currently in the county. It's not within the city. Uh it does have technically legal access through the middle of this wash. whether they can realize flag lot and maybe I'll I'll try to put the parcel viewer back on. We'll see what happens here. Um Oh, it's not terrible. U but there is a access way further to uh the west. Uh so in theory they could be accessing off this this

uh right of way as opposed to this legal access. Who's to who's to say what the standards are? Yeah. Um that's the wash like this. Wow. So along Okay. So So this big one on the left is is phase one. Uh this is phase two. This is the property that we're discussing. The phase one is even further to the uh southeast way off in the corner. So I'll put this on. But they're So they're doing phase two first. This is Yeah. phase this is project one. And the reason I'm going to distinguish this way is that project one has two phases in it. So when we come back for phase no wonder I was getting confused

of project one. So project one project two project two is the site in question and the middle boundary here that that's the western boundary. Yeah. This this is the western boundary that would have uh the requested and like what is it zoned that back property behind the residential property? What is that's residential? I believe they're both within the county are our rural residential. There may be some aspects up here in the front that have a a highway commercial offset, but generally speaking,

I guess I would wonder like how those residential owners are going to feel about Yeah. granting an exception to not having I mean, they're about to have an apartment building. Are they going to want, you know, a fence or Yeah. Johanna, we were just discussing this today about a different project. I don't know if it's worth bringing up is the definition of of screening and then furthermore how screening is measured.

In the discussions we had today, it seems uh relevant in that some of the intent behind the screen was is indicative of how we measure them. Long story short, and I'm not going to quote it exactly, but is uh screening will be measured from when the opposing sides of the screen are different in elevation. the the screen shall be measured from the uphill side. I wish I could draw this with my whiteboard, but basically on this plateau that we have, the idea that through screening is that the downhill property um would receive the same benefits of screens that are placed at the top of the hill. Uh just because you're higher doesn't make the screening eligible for less height. I don't know what that means in this context, but that's how it's been expressed throughout the rest of our code.

Do you know the elevation difference between the two properties or from the That would be a good question. Yeah. For Ellen and Ryan based off the likely design is to mitigate that wash. What? Ryan, what is it about 10 feet? Um, it just tapers, you know, it's higher on the north, uh, west corner and it, you know, tapers down as you head to the to the south, but it's, you know, anywhere from like 10 to 12 feet, you know, down to like five or six feet.

Have you guys tal Have you guys discussed this with those property owners at all? Yes. Can can you tell us what those conversations have been like? No, we haven't had discussions with them. Okay. I mean, we've had discussions with the neighbors to the north. I keep getting confused. I think it's the west where the wash is. Yeah, that's the west. And they're fine with it. In fact, I think um we're getting Yeah,

we submitted an email, you know, saying that they're okay with, you know, because we do need to get onto their property to manipulate the grades a little bit. And uh they said they were okay with that, but we need to get it in a formal um like temporary construction easement basically. Um which was one of our last comments on the DRT, you on the site plan review. Mhm. Yeah. And so there I as far as I know that's the only parcel that has an occupant on it. The parcel to the north south south I believe that land's undeveloped. Yes.

Yeah. And even like the southwest corner seems undeveloped too. Yeah.

Okay. Good to hear that the western property adjacent property owners are okay with it. I think that that particular barrier is my main concern. Um, like you said, because it's occupied. And to be clear, so there's it's it's weird. You've got like the little flag lot. This would be the the residential like currently occupied structure you've talked to. Even if that

it looks at least looking at like the parcel viewer, it looks like that little spit is actually owned by the back lot. So the southernmost correct. We're talking to the party that's on the other side of that flag. Cool. Yeah. Could you as you guys move forward with this have in writing from the residents saying that it's okay? Yeah, that's so down the road 20 years somebody comes and complains about it. It's in writing.

I can't I mean we we could have a conversation. I'm not sure that they're going to to agree to it in perpetuity, but um Yeah. Yeah. I mean it it sounds like you were getting that in writing that they are fine with it now. Correct. Did I hear that right from Ryan? Yeah, we have Yeah. The the neighbor right the neighbor on the other side of the wash

Yeah. is fine with it and they're fine with giving us a temporary construction easement like Ryan said because we need to get onto their land to do some of the grading on our land. Um and they they they agreed to it. Great. We just need to moralize it in a you know in a written a formal written document. Yeah, it'll be good. All right. Uh, for those at home, Google Street View actually has a great view of this. Um, check it out. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. with that. So what what we're seeing there what Ka showed us not what we're all seeing is basically that rise um that in his existence they this project will be pushing through fill that rise closer to the highway but there will still be essentially that same uh wash coming down to the highway for drainage. Um, and at that, at least with the LAR that I have, that the measurements are right that basically at its steepest, it appears to be a 10- foot rise

and it narrows as it approaches the rear of the property to a point of it actually impacts that'll be grading into the hill. Yeah. To a, you know, significant degree as well. Um yeah, the I would say my only remaining concern is at least looking at the landscaping plan or the site plan. That's the parking area that's on the western boundary, right? One of the nice things about screening with parking areas is you're not getting headlights shining over your property. It's not like it's the building that's sort of looming, which is a reason for screening. It it really is, you know, making sure headlines aren't like shining

on whatever that grade is. I don't know how you would determine that. Well, as a plateaued Yeah. area, that would be the case. Um, again, these are impacts whether we perceive them or not. Yeah. Um, which is part of your duty. um for the possible future annexation of these properties developing in the city code or just under the county. Um that at least we're honoring those properties in the county to be mitigated from higher impacts.

This is I haven't weighed in on this really. Um but my understanding is that it would be a shame to put a vinyl fence in there. I'd like to hear more as to why that is an unnecessary mitigative element or how it's otherwise being mitigated. Um that I I don't believe I've heard that and I'm I'm a big and a major fan of this project moving forward, but I have been on the other side of these appeal processes specifically about fences and bufferings. I'd really prefer not to go back to fact of those. We are going through the appropriate review procedures. So if it's accepted, it will be accepted. Doesn't mean it can't be appealed. Um, but this is not something that I take lightly is that especially in our community.

It's it's I don't necessarily believe tall fences make good neighbors, but in some instances some mitigations make good neighbors. Um, so I just want the commission to be really aware of what it is they're making exceptions for. Yeah, I I agree with that completely, Corey. I think I'm a huge fan of this project. I just want to make sure that we're trying to look at it from all sides so that we're not having to come back going, "Oh, oh, did we just approve something that someone made someone else mad?"

To that effect, I mean, Ellen and Ryan are on the call and they they've given appropriate narrative to to the packet. They've provided some good testimony tonight. Um, it's up to you to maybe either find that compelling enough or find it ask the questions that you need to find it more compelling. Um I I I don't know what the disadvantage from the screening specifically would do to their project. I know it's

could be more technical, but where that screening can be placed is with anywhere within that buffer. So it doesn't have to be on the exact property line. That screen can be placed anywhere within that buffering area and still qualify as the required screening. So that is to say a fence right adjacent to the parking allowing them still sufficient ability to um improve that stabilization of the wash. That being said it to their point they they believe it would be a better product for them without the fence. It'd be more attractive. And I'm maybe not disputing that at all. It's just I don't think that is the holistic concern of why that regulation's in place. It is specifically to offset mitigations to the neighbor, not an aesthetic element necessarily required for the project itself.

Does it have to be a fence? Uh, it's up to you how you'd like to modify these exceptions. There are screening measures in our code that there are green screens and screenings that can qualify. Um we've mo we've adopted a code where uh screening is standardized now but you can make exceptions beyond that which can be green screening. Um trees shrubs at a density interval do qualify as green screening and could qualify in this and so maybe you are getting somewhere slightly different although it's sounding like vegetation in this area is gonna be tough

anyway. But yeah, to your point, you can get creative and the applicants can can get more creative. I'd hate to become creative on their behalf with this group. They need to, you know, propose what they think is going to make the most sense.

I I mean, honestly, my I think my my concern really does come down to that is a significant row of parking spaces. People will be in and out. I think even if the grade is different with the adjacent property, I don't see any world in which there's enough opakqueness between the two that the adjacent property owner isn't going to have headlights coming in onto their property without some sort of more formal screening between the use being the parking spaces there um and the adjacent property. Again, like Corey said, it doesn't necessarily need to be on the property line, you still have room to sort of play with the grade in the wash, but just with that long row of however many parking spaces that is, which is a great use of the property. I think it's good that you have the buildings or you have the buildings. Um, I think that makes good sense. But see, I have seen enough of these kind of projects where adjacent land owners in a residential area next to a new higher density development have put up their own fences at their own cost because there were unanticipated impacts from the parking area, not from the buildings themselves. And I do think it's incumbent on us to consider that when we're talking about screening because I do think that's a big

by my mind a reason why we have that requirement. It's not just like intensity of use. It's it's it's light trespass. It's you know all the mitigation of nuisance impacts which is the way our code should be written. It shouldn't be arbitrary to aesthetics. It should be anything we're requiring is a direct and meaningful and yes big fence big ugly fence. That's bad. But if I'm the adjacent property owner, I would much rather have a big ugly fence than headlights coming in my windows. Um potentially. Yeah, potentially.

I I did look it up and to confirm the zoning, there is that offset of highway commercial. Uh but it basically extends up to the point of that flag the flag pole of that flag lot and then it does change more or less to to rural residential right at that junction of lot. So that that lot without some other uh zone adjustments to the county would be considered rural residential for it's its major developable area.

Um I I think I'm fine with the other exceptions, but I think the screening exception on that western boundary is a hard hurdle for me to get over. Agreed. And I do think there's other ways to do it. Obviously, it is your property. It's your development. It's what works for you. I don't think it needs to be a big ugly vinyl fence. But I do think some sort of opacity in the interest of the adjacent property owners makes sense to me. Even 4 foot would be better than nothing.

That's the thing. Like it's enough to get the lights from car. Yeah. I don't know that it would need to be. I think it's just the blanket except it's the full exemption that is the issue.

What are we hearing? I don't know. What was that? Um I think a shorter fence. I think that's a good point. um could be something that would be workable because the grade is higher. Um that's something. So to that point, um eight well greater than seven feet has to be a required engineered fence. Yeah. Uh so it requires building permit and engineering.

Uh seven foot below or six foot in this instance is a standard standard fence. Um, and yeah, in instances of opposing, maybe it's worth pulling up that language, but opposing uh grades of where the fence is a determining

uh center line between those opposing grades to a degree. Obviously, there's often it's not always on strictly on a retaining wall, but has some flow to it. um is the no matter if the property the neighboring property is above and there's a 10-ft retaining wall and then we're talking about a fence above that that's usually a safety mechanism. It is also screening according to our code. It doesn't distinguish about that but it's mostly a safety mechanism at that point because

the impacts of those neighbors would be offset by that big retaining wall. So that the sixoot fence on top of that retaining wall, which is kind of more or less what's being proposed on that south boundary, is quasi safety, quasi privacy, but really that that neighbor's observation point of impact is above most of that nuisance activity. Are they going to see the tops of three-story buildings? No. Are they going to see the side of three-story buildings? Sure.

Um but they're not going to be down at the activity level. The concern here is that if you're having a neighboring property that is below without a fence, they will either depending on how low they are, have full um full observation of all those nuisance, headlights, dust, glare, noise, anything else that could be traveling across that screening and buffering are meant to mitigate. Uh but additionally speaking, from an engineering perspective, depending on what that slope and grade is, they may be required to have a safety fence, for lack of a better term. there's a different term for it for them uh which is a lot more variable. It's not opaque. It's just trying to keep people from falling. They basically be on those parking stalls falling down into the wash.

So they may be required to have a fence anyway just from a safety strip perspective. Yeah. Depending on what that grade ends up being. If it's a 10-ft retaining or it's more acute certainly. If it's at a grade that's acceptable, I don't know if it's 2 to one, then the engineers say no, it's not a it's not a fall hazard. So, it would be purely uh mitigative for screening at that point. But, as we know, we've just explored, it's likely they're going to have the whole gambit of basically property that's well above property along this western boundary, property that is well above the neighbor, property that is at grade with the neighbor, and then property that is below the neighbor at a certain point because of the span of the entirety of that site.

So, that's a tough boundary to your point, say blanket exception across. And this is I appreciate the conversation. And I'm not trying to steer the ship, but I do know what the objections will be. Yep. Come development time. So, I'm trying to head those off beforehand that whatever we're comfortable with. Yeah. We'll we'll have good findings to respond to.

I don't I have a it's a safety issue going into the wash. Couldn't there be doesn't have to be a fence, but maybe putting boulders around like just something that could go flow with the landscape, the natural landscape that tells people, hey, wait a minute, this is where the property line ends and I shouldn't be going in that direction. Well, it sounds like that's the safety fence that could still be a requirement that you're mentioning.

It could be. Yeah, typically there there's there are standards. The engineers will set those standards. They can be less I mean you know um they have a a m a minimum height that qualify. Typically they're not features. They'll they'll be a fence of course not a landscape feature but that's where you guys are coming in from a screening perspective has a lot broader definition of what you can employ. But to that measure and like the modifications we were talking about with the last applicant. We can be as creative as we want all day. none of that might line up for what they're either a budgets are going to allow nor the functionality of it. Um but again the I if if the commission's feeling compelled I think you know an ugly a big ugly fence wouldn't be optimal. I think we're you would probably want to have a little bit more in your findings of fact to support that. And I'm not saying that there aren't findings of fact that they can provide for you two nights to grant the full exception. We just need it more than hey that'd be less than optimal from our our this perspective. You're going to want something a little deeper. So we are on round two of DRT. There's going to be another round. Um our rounds of review take two weeks. um they are going to need to come for a shared parking exception. So if we wanted to tonight accept the three boundaries that it seems like we're coming to a consensus on, they're going to be coming back to planning commission. So, if you guys wanted, I wouldn't feel pressure to make a decision tonight as they're going to come back so we could request more

information um of them of the western boundary and then approve the uh eastern and southern exceptions tonight if you wanted. I like that. Or yeah, all around depending on what the applicants want or just modification to the request because again their request is solid. They they've requested this. So you have the option to approve, deny or continue or a modification as a friendly amendment that they can accept or reject. Um so either way you can table table it that is your disposition.

Or if they're like well we're good with the three and you're good with three. That's the modification that can be made. So I mean it sounds like to me that uh doing something along the lines of doing a shorter fence on the west side where we are adjoining the residential lot and then possibly transitioning to some shrubs or greenery to block um headlights. you know, as you go further to the north is something that the council would be amendable to if I'm understanding.

Yeah, I think I we need to kind of see that laid out and the justification for it. But yeah, I think the concerns, you know, being noise, dust, light really with the with the parking area, um it seems like there's very likely going to be some sort of safety mechanism. So people don't like drive off of your property into the wash if they come home intoxicated or something like

I mean this isn't a straight drop. It's like a two to one slope you know it's being handled with grading with no like you know further you know nothing necessary to like um try and stabilize no slope stabilization or anything along those lines. So, um, but it's still a decent drop. Yeah.

Yeah. I think I think that hopefully makes sense. It really is that I to me I think some sort of opaque screening to prevent headlight sort of overflow into adjacent properties is my main concern. Um, so yes, if we wanted to modify uh our recommendation, if it sounds like folks mostly agree that the northern, eastern, and southern boundary um requests make sense. Mhm.

Um but with the modification that the the western boundary I think we can just deny it and then they can always come back. I don't know that it needs to be tabled or anything like that because we're not really tableabling that. We're we're granting it in part. We're granting their exception request in part. That could be a modification to the Yeah. I don't I just don't know what's cleaner. Yeah. Um I sorry and we're moving beyond this but I found it that it is going to belver the point further but this is the definition of screening. Uh I'll read it aloud.

Uh screening means a vertical barrier including opaque fences, walls, sight obscuring fences and landscape screening situated between adjacent uses or properties. Other features uh constructed or planted to reduce impact on adjacent land uses and land areas where the difference in elevation on the opposite sides of the screen. the height shall be measured from the highest elevation. Uh there's a couple pieces in there uh that I think are relevant. We don't need to discuss them now. Just we touched on a little bit already. Uh that I think that's good to keep in the back of mind. Now back to

procedures wise. Uh I think that's kind of up to the commission how you'd like to move forward like skin the cat. Mhm. Um the Oh, go ahead. If you have a recommendation, I was just going to say um the recommended motion as put out is cleanly has all the boundaries separated. Yep. Um, so we are primed and ready for a uh just all cart whatever. Mhm.

And that we've done this before as well that um the if you were to make a motion for approval with that modification in fact they the again the applicant can accept or reject that you've approved it in this way. They can whe they take it or leave it so to speak. Um so that would be a clean way for them to continue to move forward and then return for the west boundary uh through an additional exception uh without having to table any of the elements. So that that is like I like that.

Uh okay. Uh I will do that then because I made it complicated. Um I

we all help. I move that the city of Ma planning commission approve planning resolution 62026. A planning resolution approving the following buffering and screening special exception request for property at 1410 South Highway 191 Moab, Utah 84532. Uh the northern boundary, eastern boundary and southern boundary exceptions as noted in the agenda are accepted with the modification to exclude the western boundary exception from our resolution this evening. Hopefully that works.

Another thing, but I can make it after the fact. I second it. All right. that came from Shaye and and some discussion. Corey, did you have a I did if you wanted to and and we got a little bit away from this regarding the um east boundary having that have some language conditional that they advance consolidation in the future at some point or if you're comfortable just as is.

Yeah, I am comfortable as is. It's my motion, but Shaye, you brought that up. Do you want to amend my motion to add that or are you fine with asis? Um, I mean, I think with the placement of the property, I think it's a great point. And I I would like it in there. Can we amend it if the agreement? I heard I would like it in. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have very bad receptive.

No, you're good. Um, all right. Procedurally, there's a motion on the table. There's been a second. Would we call for a vote first and then amend it? I we just went through this with council and I corrected in a way I was like I don't remember that being rules and order. Um that I believe one of the attorneys was saying that that has been seconded. So the friendly amendment could not be accessed at this point. We're into deliberation. So you'd have to make an action. Yeah. and then come back with the other the other. Um,

so it sounds like if you would like Shay's amendment added to the language to vote nay on the motion and then bring the amended motion. Sorry to do that to you. It's fine. No, but just Yeah, I believe that is the I thought that friendly amendments could happen after deliberation, but I think recently I was correct and I it's touchy with that. So I'd rather that's this is a sure this is we don't do it often so practice. Yeah this this is definitely correct um to do it yeah to deny and then come back with the second.

Okay so we have the motion on the table that has the uh exceptions as indicated in the packet with the exception modification to exclude the western boundary exception that was requested. Um, no other modifications. Um, that is my motion. I'm sticking with it. Uh, if you want that motion, I would say vote yay. if you would like to consider another motion, including that one with a possible amendment from Shaylee to add the um condition of the consolidation of the lots for the eastern boundary exception, then it would be proper to vote nay on this motion and then someone can make that new amended motion. Does that make sense to everyone?

Okay. Yes. Okay. Um, all in favor of the motion currently on the table, um, say I. I. I. I. Okay. That motion passes. Shaylee. Apologies. Okay. Can't win them all. No, I understand. I understand your your concern. Okay. So, the motion passed. Three. Uh uh I should say all those opposed it hasn't passed

nay. All right. Nay from Shaye. Okay. So that passed uh 3 to one with Shaye as a nay. Um that is what we have approved and now it's up to the applicants if that's sufficient for them or if they'd like to come back that's correct with something else. Okay. Thank you applicants. Yes, and thank you so much. Like we said, we're all I think we're all really excited for this project. Um it's just trying to kind of balance that, you know, in ins and outs with the adjacent property owners, but we're really excited for the product. So, understood. Is Johanna gonna be in the office tomorrow? Yeah.

All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Shaye. Thank you as well. Thank you. Okay, we're done with our action items. Yay. On to our discussion item for the evening. Um, make that tight 30, maybe a tight 15. Yeah, maybe even less. Um, I did my homework. We have some people. All right. So, uh, this is item 6.1, our land use code update discussion. Um, take it away. Okay. And I do also have some thoughts from Carolyn who took oh the wonderful time to email me.

Look at this group. Such a nice job putting this together. I thought I heard you clicking the mouse. Are you bringing something? No, no, no. Okay, sort out my window. Sorry, I'm like the snack monster over here. Okay, so I hope that my email explanation of what this

is was understandable. I'm going to go through it uh again for all our fans. Okay. So, columns B uh through G and onwards, these are all uses that exist currently in our code um or our planning commissioners drove around and visited with constituents and either saw in our community or imagined up for our community. Um, and then column A is based off of other communities codes. What I thought we could be a starting off point of the biggest buckets imaginable that we can fit all the uses in be in our brains from our eyes and from our code can all be stuffed into these big buckets. Um, what I've asked of the planning commissioners and what I hope we can get started with tonight is go through each row and play the which one of these things is not like the other game until we are confident that the big bucket of row A can confidently hold all the uses to its right with the same uh use parameters. And if we see any that are in the same row that we think could use different use parameters, I'd like more buffering

on this use. I'd like um more parking on this use. Then we'll pull it out and put it down here. I've already got one historic dwelling. Did not know where to put that one or if we needed it. So, we'll bring it down here to be kind of un unsorted and we'll see if we can make a another big bucket or if it just needs to be standalone with this exercise. Zoning district um from big buckets could be another division element. So maybe the parameters use parameters impacts mitigation of the use may be the same but maybe uh just using the first one group dwellings we might say these and this is hard now because our our our zones are not being modified at the same time. We're doing things a bit backwards. Uh but this will maybe help us in the future designate zones maybe a little bit more specifically is do group living dwellings belong could they belong in any given zone that we want all of those things or would a zone be another reason to put them into a different bucket that you have more dense or less dense residential zoning and you say more dense residential zoning can absorb group living dwellings and low density residential couldn't Does that make sense? It's a bit of an additional comma to this exercise and I don't want to disrupt it too much. Johanna, what's your thoughts on that? Not just being a parameter, but also just zones being a

Yeah, I mean vision element. I think in our conversations in general, we always like to be yes if so. I am of the mind that if we can get as many uses and in as many zones as possible and just adding ifs rather than taking away uses from zones is preferable to me but it's up to the group. Does that make sense for everyone when we're saying like yes if I know Steve's a little bit newer to our our jargon.

Um does that make sense for everyone to track? Okay. I think that's an excellent way to approach this. Um, and then that's usually if I can imagine there's a division, it is just simply that residential uses that are clearly low versus high. That might be a disting distinguishing different bucket of the same type of use. Um, so it might be rare, but keep that in the back of your mind maybe. But I think let's focus on the immediate exercise, which is which ones don't look like the other ones. And before we begin, um, this is inherently going to come up, but we're not going to make any decisions and I'm not going to take any notes on it tonight about um what the use parameters might be

that we got to have a a separate it's going to be too much if we try to talk about I think this one should have this this parking tonight. Oh god. So let let's try to avoid that. I think we all agree. Yes. And we are stopping at 8:45. Okay. Start the clock. Um so sorry Ka, you said that you had brought some notes. Did you have some that you wanted to start out with?

Just literally just so I have what Carolyn sent. Um there are a couple. I'll I'll like do an abbreviated version of hers. Um but I think um tour operator which is let me find that again. Where is that? It's somewhere in commercial tour operator under okay actually bigger personal services and this was a comment of Carolyn's as well is a very strange and vague

bucket. Um, I think her comment was uh very vague and seems to have very expansive and different definitions. I would agree with that because as of right now, the personal services bucket includes funeral establishment, outfitters and guides, service establishments, spas, and tour operators. That doesn't make sense to me. just as an overall. I think some of those things can be put in other categories too. Um but my comment on tour operators is that I think it should be broken out like we have done otherwise into OV and non OV.

Okay. Um we do have uh where OV rentals as its own thing. I think OV tour operators should be in the same bucket as OV rentals, especially because those often go hand inand I can actually I actually can't name any OBV rental places that don't have some sort of offering of a tour component too. So I think that kind of inherently captures it.

Um but in the future because it's the same it's the same impact. It's the same issues. It's this it's it's the presence of the the fleet and the staging area I think.

So to me I think tour operator is far too broad and should probably be encapsulated in like you know you've got like the Jeep tours are in the vehicle the car rental category the OV tours are in the OV rental category. the boat tour operators are in the guides and outfitters like Texas or Moab Jet or what have you. Does that make sense? Okay. And to that effect, I think I think in this instance for our community to for down the line the greatest specificity I imagine that we're having

outfitters. Yeah. as a big bucket and then we further fill that with these refined buckets. Yeah. Um but then even then like we're saying we could have multiple very likely multiple medium buckets that are still distinguished. Um, so that we are placing OD outfitters and tours in certain districts that are different than rafting or climbing or any other but cycling. You know, those those would be how we're breaking it out per zone. But I think because again this exercise zoning,

it's not the pre preliminary exercise we're going through tonight is what is the impact to do these things? what's happening for the people there which is a really I'm glad you picked up on professional services is kind of the first one that how do we do this the best way that we could probably reference this back sorry to us you time here is like what Barry was talking about with occupancies he doesn't care when somebody's at a desk and they're sliding a piece of paper to a client he doesn't care what's on the piece of paper so whether that's an attorney or that's a a drafter or whatever why would we distinguish that different is virtually the same action y

that's where personal services is a is of all of these probably one of the trickiest of you're providing basically a custom service. So I think extracting outfitters is a really good I'm I'm there with you also but that is interesting funeral establishment custom personal personnel services uh or personal services rather um that is good to tease out like what's h it's what is a service establishment what is it well that's a great definition that we could where I go park my car stay for a while nothing much happens on the outside and then I leave okay is kind of the junk drawer that I made personal services is where does that happen

that's a good way to put it and that's what p uh I believe uh service establishes is not currently defined in our code but it is an often big catch that is that a gas station is that a small you know something that is beyond a retail because there's when we talk about vending permits you're often vending right and so we see vending vending licens is also we're conveying services and that seems contradictory. So this is where services goods andor services goods t typically customary of retail that would be a you're you're exchanging something for something. Yeah.

In this you're exchanging something for a service. So that could be a automotive establishment. It could be we could break that out. Again, very big, very big, very there's a big difference between like going and getting a manicure and going and having like your car detailed, right? In our current in our current code, it's basically defaulted to that we have this big big use and then we've also added a bunch of supplementary uses that then why is that different than totally that's I think Johanna's big pursuit at least in that line item. Maybe we move past it because that is an awfully complicated one knowing we need to tease that out.

Yeah, I think so. would would just like and what something that seems to be missing to me or maybe that's I mean some of those personal services probably fit fine under offices and some of them probably fit better under I feel like I guess my my thought is all of those individual things in that bucket could probably be distributed to other buckets Wonderful. I like that. Getting rid of a big bucket. Yeah. I'm trying to consolidate.

Like custom personal services, offices. It's kind of how we're operating now. So that's not a bad observation. Yeah. Spa and personal care services offices I'm thinking of. So like we have offices that we've rented for 30 years above Red Rock Bakery, my employer, right? And we are up there as just like offices, you know, with

there's a massage therapist next door to me. There's a naturopathic doctor. There's uh psychiatrists. There's there was a tattoo and piercing place for a um there's also just like offices that are never occupied that somebody has had and been renting for like 20 years, you know. So I think like that is that catch to me. Um, so yeah,

like where would that to me that is the it's an office and it's an office whether it's a massage therapist or someone doing like hypnotism like there's there's been all sorts of things but it still just remains like an office. So, uh, my next comment was that the car wash can and should be with service stations. I think that makes sense to me. Okay.

Um, I think those two things, one are often one and the same. And then as far as like zoning and all that, service station like like to get like oil changes and stuff. Yeah, like a gas station. Service is a So, we do have service station also in our What if we have someone that wants to do like a Sorry, what was that? What if someone wants to come in and do like one of those like What if someone wants to do like a Wiggy wash or a a duck duck go kind of car wash?

Yeah, like I feel like a a gas like a Maverick and like a Wiggy Wash. Same thing. Same same area that they'd be appropriate. Same intensity of uses. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. I feel like associating it with a an automobile type thing. Yeah. Well, with a like with a gas what I would call a service station, you're kind of you're flipping service station as the big bucket and gas station or I would say service station is the big bucket. That could be a gas station. That could be like a maybe there's a large automotive detailing place that pops up. A gas station over here in your service station, a car wash,

word, a truck stop. I mean, that's all it's a service. Yeah. Yeah. Include Napa and No, I would say that's retail still. Well, we have currently vehicle repair as separate. Yeah. And I would say that's retail like functionally they could be except imagine if we have and this is what will be hard again I'm stuck in zoning mode. We want to allow retail in the C5 commercial. Is that also appropriate for a Napa? Well if it's we're saying retail is permitted and we define Napa as retail. All of a sudden

maybe the Napa has a limited scope where it is just a walk-in retail. It really is just a goods experience. But the minute they start offering services now we're talking something slightly different which we can have those distinctions and flexibilities of yes if like your customary service station they've removed their scope or a gas station removes the gas element now they're just a convenience store and that convenience store might be applicable in other zones that maybe the gas station wouldn't be. Um, yeah, I'm very much stuck on

I think what would make sense in the Napa, that's a good point and that's not something I thought of. I think vehicle repair, that bucket could be vehicle repair and retail. And I think that would capture the Napas and the O'Reillys and the the places where there someone might be doing just like a little light bit of vehicle repair in the parking lot um on a regular basis at at Napa or O'Reilly or wherever. And I think Do you think that could be different than service station? Yes, I do. I really I think there's a big difference between an O'Reilly and a Maverick. Um or like a large

me like a service station is something you go you might be there for a short amount of time and then you leave where like the other one like a repair your car has got to stay there for a while. This isn't like a shortterm type of thing in my brain anyway. Mhm. So, so a service is like, okay, you're going to go get that service done within the hour and late. Mhm. Where repair is long term. So, everything we just talked about had to do with auto. Mhm.

What is there another service that would have those same components but not be tied to automotive?

I mean potentially, but I don't know for to me the term service station is a gas station. That's I grew up that was what we used to refer to a gas station. like you'd go to the Sinclair Observe Station. So, I feel like that makes sense for that bucket. And then it's, you know, the description of what it is will tell you what it is. Yes, that's a lot of what we're talking about is the definition.

Yeah, that's a wonderful point. So next, I don't know how we're going to order this, but just as I said that we're going to come back and we're going to do um use parameters, we're also going to come back and we're going to do definitions for every single one of these. And when we come at and do those, we're probably going to have some last minute shuffle just shuffling around. Mhm.

Um, so what I would what would really be helpful for next round or next meeting is probably that everybody makes a copy of this and play a fun sorting game

and everybody sorts to their likings and I'll compare everybody's, highlight what we all had in common. Um, and then we can go through the ones that we didn't. Um, and then it'll just be a little bit more organized and good on my brain. Um, and then we can come back and do definitions that we think encapsulate all of the row B through G's of it all and then make our last minute changes. Then move on to use parameters and then make our last minute changes. If that sounds good to everybody. Makes sense.

What's a parklet? Sorry, what? What's a parklet? A parklet would be like 98 center. What they have outside? Oh, okay. I'm like, what is that? I don't know what that is. A little the little There's seating in the parking area basically. Okay. Um so I'm like I don't know. And then I just did in the interest of time, my final comment was that an apo I feel like an apothecary or an herbal store should be in neighborhood retail, not with like medical. Okay. I'm so excited for neighborhood retail, guys. Yeah. Oh, me too. I think the I might add so commissary kitchen is tagged onto offices. I might also think about commissary kitchen being

Yep. It's not eating establishment. It is different than that. But I would say offices ought to be from kind of Barry's world. Those are going to be inherently different. Yeah. What's that? Is that paid for? Because some of the like the national parks building down unresourced. There's kitchens in there. Commissary kitchen. But it's not a commissary in my head. It's not a commissary because you're not buying something. you're making your own food there. The it might be even a little bit further than that. I think customary commissary for us would be basically you pay tenency or lease to access a commercial grade kitchen. Yep.

For your either personal business or something like that. So it is basically a commercial commercial grade kitchen that patrons have access to. This is like a versus like a like there's a kitchenet as a part of a part of a business. We won't look at that. In fact, we we're just looking at that like there's a little kitchen is a part of a clubhouse. Yeah. For a residential development. Like that's just your little kitchen. That's another dwelling. It's not any of those. I missed where you wanted to put that. The the Oh, I think it's a I'm I'm saying it's a one of the question marks. I think we pull it out. Maybe find a different bucket or it creates its own bucket. I think it it's a neighborhood commercial or neighborhood um retail potentially.

Good. Except the exchange isn't retail per se. Yeah, but it's I think I'm thinking I've already intensity and I think that I think well particularly I think the apothecary is sort of the bridge there between the two because if you think about if you are like distilling medicinal herbs in your little cauldron in your little like health

health health department approved kitchen for that business. Um that is to me is very similar to being a baker that provides scones to coffee joints in town who needs to prepare those in a commercial health department licensed kitchen. That seems very similar to me. Um and maybe it's scale is where the where the line is. Mhm. Um because is it like you know I'm thinking like what like Desiree had when Adobe Apothecary was up running.

She was making and making like baked goods and selling them both on site and then also to other businesses. That's was to me felt perfectly appropriate in that site which is in a residential area. It was on the back of an existing commercial business but it was like a C2. Right. That's a good maybe food for thought for us is how we're structuring intensities. Um because right now residential is a good use. It just we have residential use everywhere. Yes. So in this instance, if it were neighborhood commercial, we would essentially say it's permitted in neighborhood commercial acceptable areas. Yeah. As because we wouldn't want to exclude it from central commercial zone potentially.

So it's grouped that you have neighborhood commercial in central commercial zone. neighborhood retail in commercial or central commercial zones. So basically you can go anywhere that's a higher intensity but we'll limit what the lowest intensity is or do we want to be that specific that we want to isolate where high intensity things should be at lower intensity things should be and they're not mutually exclusive. That will be a question for us a little bit. But the yes if yes if as many options as possible is basically

it's permitted in anything that's in more intense down and we just restrict where it can't go. Yeah. Basically things are permitted everywhere except the ones that we say these are too light. We remove them from those. I think that does make sense for those things particularly the things that we constantly talk about we need more of and don't have room for. Offices that's a huge one and then small retail is another one. Um, and to me it makes sense to sort of say have fun, you know, in all these areas like

the market. And that's a very much kind of a form-based code, which is to say as long as the impacts are are regulated and we are willing to let the market take over, the Uklidian zoning is taking a backseat. I have mixed reactions to that. There there's a lot of there's communities that and depending how we handle it uh function just fine that way and others we separations carve out is what we can get with that is runaway effect the highest and best uses. Y the more freedom you have the more chances for disproportionate use.

Yeah. Uh and so I've actually prior to this experience was like some of the ways to get what we need is to actually overly regulate where they can be. So it is the option the things we want that is the only option comparatively. So well there's all the options. Yeah. Then the highest best uses are going to take over not necessarily the most needed. Those are philosophical elements.

Yes. No good thing to good reminder good thing to map out. So yeah, that that's kind of that was my feedback and um Carolyn's sort of reflected some similar things. Um let me see. Uh I would say something to add which would be relevant before our next meeting is recommend adding a plaza or something like that to definitions of civic gathering space was a note that she had. Great. in parentheses. My dream would make a little public town square somewhere. Very well. There we go.

Um, and then a lot of stuff in residential about dwelling live work not intended to capture remote workers or used for businesses. Like, is that accurate? What do you mean by live work units? And then are twin homes and town homes the same thing? No. But town houses are not in there. Yeah. And then difference between a bunk house and on-site employee housing. What is it? Would you like the answer now? Yeah. Okay. Sorry.

No, you're good. Um, on-site employee housing can really take the any form. That could be a single household residence, that could be apartments, or it could be a bunk house. Um, and bunk houses is where we see multiple uh lots of rooms sharing Yeah. bathroom sharing kitchen.

Cool. And then I'm trying to see um suggest changing mobile food vendors to mobile food/beverage vendors to better capture drive-thru coffee spots. Drive-through coffee, it's its own thing, though. Mobile food vendors would be like food trucks, right? Yeah. We're uh home occupations and vendors we're going to extract from this jumble

or I guess I could insert it, but we've been doing a fair amount of work and we're already to the um use parameters stages of those guys. um some working them in that'll that'll take some um to our process right now. So I don't want to dwell on that too much but that's a wonderful point vendor that has a driveth through element. Yeah. And that was an issue too with which it obviously exists on the ground now, but there was a big issue when snake oil came before the commission because all we had in the code was drive-thrus like a Wendy's, which is a much higher intensity use and would not have made sense on the corner by teenage. Um I I think there should be something that's like I don't know what you would

I think we have enough now and probably we'll have more in the future of those very very small time limited drive-thru eating or drinking establishments that I don't think I still think there's not a so drive-through coffee shop is under drive-thru I not think that should be in the same bucket. as far as if we're zoning, if we're thinking future uklidian zoning for this. I feel like that's more in the food truck realm, frankly, that came in on axles. Yeah.

Yeah. And that that's really the the construction and definition of the state will have a big factor in that. They also have massive exemptions from your standard customary safety and health regulations because they're meant to be mobile and occupied by an owner. So we have a static situation becomes basically a commercial site that is exempt from all those. They don't have bathrooms, they don't have ADA access, they don't have a number of things which maybe which typically we would not encourage unless there was a reason like no this makes sense to allow this crossover in um

which it makes sense in those instances like Wicked Brew. It is on another commercial site. It's in the parking lot and an existing commercial site. They make oil into the parking lot and exist. satisfied. What is that like stick built? So, they're not mobile technically. They are fixed. Yep. Snake oil, same thing. They're a bit cross because they got proofed in two different ways. Um, but yeah, that is something to consider for us. Um, can can a mobile vendor have mobile perimeter access? That's an interesting thought, which is kind of your point. I think that's what you're getting at. Can a mobile vendor have a drive-thru aspect? I don't think the answer could be would their state licensing be different. That may be one way to look at some of this.

I don't think so. I don't I don't think it would other than what becomes challenging is the state preempted municipalities from regulating uh vendors altogether. So the only way we currently regulate vendors is we're not regulating the vendor, the truck. We're we're regulating the um land on which those private property vendors exist. So the land underneath them we're regulating but not the truck itself. So that would fall into category if we'd permit them if they have a circulation path and they do everything they need to do. Sure. You can have a drive-thru with your vendor if it could. But I think if somebody were to come to us right now with that we could probably make it work. Make it work.

Yeah. Yeah. Whether like you say it's become popular enough maybe it deserves a standalone designation. Yeah. But we are working basically extracting the build the business license code to see what is land use in this that shouldn't be just in the licensing code. This is actually land use. That's where the crossover's happening. Yeah. So a lot of this will be accessory uses is kind of where we're going with a lot of these.

But that's really hard too because then you have obviously it's the county but like the taco time that's there now. It is a drive-thru. It's also a mobile building technically that is on the existing site and it's not it there. Yeah, there some something something with drive-thrus is my feedback. I don't know what the answer is. Yeah, they just were thinking about coming into the city and we looked at a site forum and I think it would have worked but it was too crowded. He just would have had to meet the Yeah. drive radius. So, I don't think that's too much of a barrier. Okay, cool. Right now, but that doesn't mean mean that we shouldn't carve it out because obviously,

but I know like when we're looking at zoning, drive-throughs right now are not allowed in all the commercial zones. They're not allowed in C1 and C2 was the issue and there Well, yeah, there's a distinction between drive-thru um drive-thrus, which is like, oh, a bank has a drive-thru. the any given thing any given thing can have a drive-thru in these zones. And then there's drive-through eating establishment. Is that the other drive-through eating establishment where you could just throw drive-thru drive-thru planning authorizations like you could do that if the zone allowed. So that's where that's a bit of a silly current existing situation.

Yeah. where I think we just get rid of that altogether and say this this type of use parameter. You can have an eating establishment and then you have a drive-thru. Here are the regulations that you would need to meet to drive make your Oh, yeah. make your your eating establishment drive-thru or your anything a drive-thru. It's just regulations to offset. I forgot that about that. We I have drive-thru as a Yeah. accessory. Oh, you can apply it drive-through coffee. Okay. Drive. Yep, that actually covers what I was talking about. Sorry, I did not understand that. That's it for me and Carolyn for now, but Johanna, I'll forward you that email from her.

Yes. Wonderful. And I'll send out a reminder of uh what I'd love for you all from next week. That would be great. Next meeting. Can we use the printer at the city? I don't have

for a nominal fee. Okay. Is that uh okay for this evening as far as discussion? All right. Um future agenda items. Okay. We've got um a special exception to uh landscaping uh the MOA childc care campus.

Oh yes. Uh, we've got probably Red Rock 2 coming back with their landscaping and then Red Rock 2 coming with their shared parking agreement. And that is what I have for you so far. Cool. Oh, thank you. The 26th is the next meeting, right? Um, yes.

Okay, that's what I have done. Just making sure. Yes. All right. I'm going to keep people here. I will adjourn the meeting at 9:01 p.m.