Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

They are being recorded. Excellent. Um, all right. I will call to order this April 9th, 2026 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6:17 p.m. Again, apologies for our late start. We, as usual, we're having technical issues. We are not live streaming the meeting right now, but we will be posting the meeting recording ASAP. Apologies to members of the public. Um, but we are meeting our statutory requirements with the recording. Um, and of course the agenda being done. Um, in attendance tonight here in chambers we have city staff Kelsey Garcia, planning commissioners uh, Shaylee Bryant, myself, Ka Marinfeld, and Jill Tatton. And we have commissioner Carolyn Kon attending on Zoom. We also have city staff Cory Sherliff and Johanna Blanco attending virtually. Um, and our city council leazison Miles Loftton as well. I don't know if anybody else is in the Zoom room yet. I can't see them, but we have no one in chambers here um physically. Uh first item of business is citizens to be heard. Um question about if we're not live streaming, can our people who are waiting to speak see that we're like here and going and things like that? We yeah, we only have one applicant who's in you can't see Courtney, but she is in the in in the Zoom meeting, not in the waiting room. So, I think that's our applicant for tonight.

So, so someone if they tried to get in via Zoom could see the meeting and watch the meeting. Maybe tell Eve that. Except we wouldn't accept the public. It's just applicants and Courtney is our only applicant for the Well, no. I mean, Eve is our uh noteaker probably. That might

nice gesture. Um, okay. Uh, and then also worth noting the Zoom link was not included in the uh agenda tonight. I don't know if it normally is. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. Um, Yep. Sorry. Give me a second. Eve is messaging me. Does someone have her email? Can we send her the link for Zoom?

Okay. I just told her you'll send her the Zoom link. Johanna, that sounds good.

Awesome. Okay. All right. Um, we backing up. We've introduced who's here. Uh, first item of business is citizens to be heard. Uh we do not have anyone here in chambers. Uh and we did not receive anything via email as far as I can tell. Correct.

All right. So, moving on. Next item is item number three, our approval of minutes. We have minutes from our last meeting, which was on the 26th of February. Um if folks have had a chance to look those over, we can entertain a motion or make any corrections if we need them. I can make a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of the city plan Moab city planning commission from February 26, 2026. All right, we have a motion for approval from Carolyn. Is there a second? I second it. A second from Shaylee. Uh any discussion? Any corrections? I looked over it. I didn't see anything that Okay.

wasn't great. All right. Uh, all in favor of uh, approving the minutes from our February 26, 2026 meeting, say I. I. I. Shay, would you mind moving the mic a little closer? I'm sorry. All right. Do we have Do we have even the meeting, Johanna? Who can see now? Not yet.

Okay. Okay, apologies for all the issues, folks. Uh, next we have a public hearing item 4.1, consideration and possible recommendation to city council of city ordinance 20267, an ordinance amending the text of the Moab municipal code section 17.08.060. 060 to update the process by which the city grants exceptions to its requirements governing the construction of sidewalk curves and gutters. Uh all right. I will what we'll do is we'll usual we'll open the public hearing have city staff uh give a presentation um and then uh we will if we have anyone speaking at the public hearing we'll hear public comment um leave it open and then close it at the end um hey Kelsey could you hit okay on the meeting is being recorded we can't see anybody's faces otherwise

you just uh like you see you Just click okay. That way that'll disappear. Are those motion sensitive lights?

Thank you. Sorry. And Eve has joined now, just FYI. Awesome. Okay, great. Nice. Okay. Uh, I will open the public hearing on item 4.1 at 6:23 p.m. Uh, staff, we're ready for the presentation.

Okie do. So, here is the this item is brought to you by the city of Moab. Um, we don't have a a citizen applicant. Um, this is the current code for 1208060. Sidewalk, curb, and gutter required at the time of construction. Um, hopefully you guys have read over this. Um this is currently when a site is built upon they are required to install sidewalk curb and gutter um along their frontages. They may also go to the city council to get a an exception for a fee in lie. They need to meet the criteria of 200 lineal feet. Single household residence is the use. Um not perpetuating a half paved street and it needs to be consistent with the street character. Um and then we calculate the fee and loo for them. The proposal is um changing out city uh city council for the city manager. And then we're adding a new tier of exception which would be a total exception rather than an exception where you pay a fee in L. Here is the proposed language. We can see in A and C that we're changing uh from city council to city manager. And then section F, we're adding the new total waiver exception uh

with the following criteria. The in the entire street where the lot or property is located is unpaved in its in entirety. the city had not previously collected a fee in loo um for other property owners on the street and then the street is not part of a larger city project um to be paved. Um so this will be the same as our other item today. Um this is what the code currently lays out to you uh for the criteria of changing the code. Uh so we got this list of questions to consider today. We are putting forward a recommendation to city council. They are going to be the approval body for code changes. Um the staff's answers to these questions are included in your packet and that is the end of my brief if we have any questions or Corey would like to say something. Yes,

sure. Yeah, I'd love to jump in with a little bit of additional commentary. So to give and provide a little bit more uh context to why this is coming through as a city initiated or city initiative text amendment outside of what would be our larger land use code update and our complete streets policy. There um was a current construction situation where this question was asked to the city administration where the current provisions of the code seemed inadequate. So that uh property owner was intending to pursue some option whether it was a text amendment of their own uh writing and construction or a development agreement very specifically for their own property. And as we were going through that legal analysis and their opportunities to advance some uh option of remedy, it was it highlighted that the city administration saw the opportunity here to in this very surgical way improve this context. Um this two-tiered system uh maintains what we do have but then creating a higher criteria threshold for properties where a fee and loo may not make sense. Uh that is again three options which is to construct construct as uh the requirements might have you the fee and loo option which is uh was formerly a city council determination um and then into what would be a total exception if you meet this very specific criteria. Now within the city limits there are very few right ofways that might meet this situation. So the question of whether this has uh weight to carry forward, is it is it worth the change? at least from the city's administration determination is yes at this time it would be in that

with our annexation policy and future annexations we may inherit a number of rightways that could meet this criteria and for the sake of developers at least without a u more specific uh transportation plan or unified transportation plan adoption u we want to create that option where it's not an unreasonable hardship for immediate construction construction particularly for single household construction or small lot construction builds. Um so this has been through our legal review. This was actually um drafted by our legal team, not not in-house by our planning staff. So we've reviewed this and we accept and believe this this criteria would be adequate and and meet the the needs of what are the current uh current properties that might be identified within that as well as future options. So without painting too much of a more specific detail on on the impetus, I think that maybe hopefully colors in why why we're seeing this, especially given out of the planning office, we've typically been looking to hold off on text amendments until we have a little bit more of a comprehensive uh ability to look at the land use code or offsets. This is in title 12, not specifically in title 17, but it is a development standard that we would be reviewing. Um so in very few contexts I think it could be appropriate to say well let's fix this problem now. It's very likely not to talk about future agenda items too much but there may be others uh particularly to the vendor code we might be coming to visit prior to our our larger land use code update. So I think at least from the community development realm that might be the piece I would want to provide.

Thank you. Could you um explain a bit more the under F provision number two? I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around that one. Yeah. So, in the specific property um that started this ball rolling, um they brought forth evidence that the city had previously not um pursued getting Effie and Lou from other neighbors um who had built um and did not construct. Um, so that was added in there that if we had previously pursued uh having somebody else get a fee in Lou um then it wouldn't really be fair to this new person um now that this code has passed. Oh, my neighbor just had to pay um but now I won't. Does that make sense? So only if you're whole on your whole street if nobody has ever paid fee and loo before uh would you be eligible. Yeah, it does. It makes that's what how I was interpreting it. I was just trying to think of um what the implications of that would be in terms of um like the outstanding need to construct sidewalk curbs and gutters and sort of like kicking the can down the road by saying, "Well, these other people never had to pay for it, so now nobody else on the street will ever have to pay for it. So, who's going to pay for it or how will the how will the work get done?"

Yeah. Yeah. And also especially I think in the example that Cy gave of like future annexation scenarios where this is likely to be true because they would never have nobody would have paid those fees before because previously they were part of the county. Absolutely. Yeah. Um I think Corey had something to add.

Yes. I think the only thing I might add to that because that that is one of the risks I think to the city that could identify is well now now we do want to start that ball rolling as it were. Um so with that the idea of this being um responsive to what would be an approved transportation plan. So if we have the intent to construct um I think that would kick this particular area out. Um so that that would have to be initiated now in some way that couldn't be just an individual builder because this is a the city manager shall not a city manager may. So if you meet this criteria, it's administratively approved uh in that way. So that's something um that I'm I'm glad you've illuminated that. But that does create a bit of that if we might consider a risk about future development, but that the only way to I think manage this uh in a non-discretionary way is to have that fixed. Um so we would be the city have to would take some initiative to begin the improvements. And again, this construction is pretty atypical that this includes um curb, gutter, sidewalk, which are typically customary to the the owners of a a single lot being obligated to construct. But it's very rare that the entirety of the street of an unpaved road, a dirt road, we would say, "Oh, you got to pave that section in front of your street." That's very atypical. And this is actually, excuse me, uh, historic to the way we had very historically permitted subdivisions to construct. Now, those right-of-way improvements would need to be constructed. So, this is only for very historic areas for single household type construction. So, if we're talking new development um or or a new road system, this won't be a factor. Um, so this this is a way to I guess in a sense

allow for our more rural character right ofways to preserve and continue until it is the city's uh city's obligation to improve uh improve on its behalf and then owners would have to come into compliance after the fact. That was a bit of a messy explanation, but I hope it covers that you've highlighted a really important pinch point, but I think it is contemplated that we're we're conceding that that idea.

Um, number three under that, the street where the lot or property is located is not subject to project the city has approved to pave or otherwise improve the street. Just the wording on that is a little confusing. Is there a way we could clean that up just a little bit? Yeah. When I read I thought and an uh would do nicely. If you want to uh adjust that in your motion,

I would agree. and maybe versus a specific language, we can recommend uh approval with modifications by legal team to clean that up and let them smith that themselves. Yeah, that's a great catch. We discuss it before the meeting or before the public hearing or after.

Uh we can we can public hearing is happening right now. So, um, yeah, because what would that say is located is not subject to a project the city has previously approved to pave or otherwise improve the street. That might make it a little clear what like just the subject verb agreement was a little strange. My I guess one question that I have is when we're granting an exception, historically it's been a voted on process, whether it's through us or through the city council. And I don't know that I think these exceptions need to go all the way to city council. I think they could potentially be handled here. I do wonder if it sets the city as a whole up for failure if you have a non-elected official making these exceptions without due process. I just that that was the one question I kind of have because I actually think this is a logical thought process. I I live on one of these roads. Um

and while I would really love our road paved, I have no idea when that's going to happen. And it it would be weird to expect uh someone to put in a sidewalk. Um and then it kind of, you know, because it does not fit in where my house is as far as like making it be consistent with the street character. Um but I also wonder if we don't have the fee in Lou if it prevents the city from updating the street sooner rather than later. That would be my other yeah thought is again just a road like that.

Johanna, you might piece in this from from a legal and due process perspective the fee fee and uh and it remains discretionary but rather than city manager based off of criteria which is appropriate and fits within the context of state code administrative through criteria. It's actually it's that as a legislative action by council which is an administrative action by council gives kind of the conception. So the way lma is currently being structurary actions and non-discretionary actions this um is to say the fianl is an administrative action but it was taken to council. So that's why we made it the city manager is it it should be administrated throughout um but is a may so it's discretionary on how how that may work in a context for flu this new provision which is not repealing the fianl is a shall but again to a higher criteria level so I guess to legal degree I I don't think there's concern of violations of due process or um nonpropriety of how to move through that action but your point of Again, again, intention of when and how those streets are being paved. In theory, that the idea is we want all of our rideaways to be up to full compliance standards at any or the most minimum thresholds. This is saying we identify that there are rural character streets that and forget the the forgive the non-technical phrase here, the popcorn style of improvement of this property owner and just their frontage and then that property owner and just their frontage. that peacemeal effect which we see throughout Moab actually can create continuity issues as you've pointed out Shaylee that actually until it's a comprehensive improvement it won't really make sense or be effective. So this is to say if the entirety of the

street in is in a certain context the city will not push through a low trigger for it to start popcorn improving. We will we will coordinate in a coordinated fashion with probably the engagement of the owners on the street and stakeholders say now we're ready to improve the street that the travel and level of service is now asking for requirement to be for it to be brought up but that you know like you said it the owners may have different opinions of when that would be or when that wouldn't be. Um, so this doesn't really, I think, address that intent of the owners, but it does give us basically two buckets to work with, which was previously just one very kind of minimal level bucket other than the fee and lube.

Well, and being super new, you know, we have to grant every exception to parking comes to us. So why wouldn't this also? I mean, we we don't have to grant every exception for parking that comes to us. We tend to just because I think we all had kind of have the perspective that our parking requirements are pretty ownorous, right? I don't mean grant mean the process asks. I think my only issue is that I think it should have a a vote on these exceptions instead of it being a singular person. Yeah, I think that'd be my only hangup with it to

I think this is smart. Yeah, I do think this is far less common than the parking exceptions and doesn't apply to as many places as the parking exceptions do. Um, so it's not like this is some massive thing that one of our appointed or elected bodies is doing on a regular basis, frankly, like the parking exceptions tend to be

like I don't think this would add too much to our plate because it's so rare. So with that, the only thing I might say is that discretionary actions by any land use authority, whether it be planning commission or a council, are are fairly narrow and they they are governed by LMA. So when we're talking development, what we what we will will run risk of if if you know you let this play out over time, if we grant it in one context and not another,

that is arbitrary and capriccious application of code. That's a legal liability we have and we will lose that fight. So the idea is if we're going to grant it at all, make it administrative and make it through a criteria that the commission and legories accept that that universally we believe this is applicable. Now this is a big debate. It's an evolution in the state of Utah moving out of discretionary territory and into administrative knowing that that that case law and that the arbitrary capricious applications. This is why again a lot of communities are moving away from conditional use permits. They're inherently flawed to put liability onto the approval authorities because unless you approve it every time, you're arbitrary apply arbitrarily applying the code if they meet the criteria. Now this is different than say a reszone or even a text amendment uh in itself what we're going through right now in that you as the body are saying does this align with our our guiding documents our general plan uh our larger intent and purpose visioning processes. So you guys are an interpretive authority on what the larger changes are. But when we're talking development code we will run foul of due process and legal proceedings. So this context is either we're in or we're out. I'd like to prefer it that way to kind of frame it that we are either in for this type of an exception or we are out and we are going to apply the code uh consistently and uniformly on either side of that. So that's my piece is I I'd be very uh very reserved in in applications of discretionary option of a land use authority. That makes sense to me and I feel like is probably the fundamental difference where like we really are taking each parking exception. No two is alike there. There are circumstances in either you know even though we we do tend to be pretty

um you know not loose with them but forgiving with the parking exceptions you know understanding that they are a pretty high bar for for applicants to meet sometimes. Um, this really is not it's almost not just it's a nondiscretionary discretionary thing that this is the reason that this is being contemplated is to make it uniform and consistent across every time it's applied. Correct? Like it would be city manager saying here's the criteria, here's the objective ways it fits or doesn't. you know, it's not uh it's not like they're going to be sitting down looking at sort of the proponents of the evidence every time and going, "Well, you know, I think this time it's sort of slightly tips in this favor for this reason." Which I think would be more of a better to have it be like a public deliberative body that did that.

That makes sense. It doesn't leave us liable.

Yeah. Right. May maybe one last comment, but but to the defense of Shaylee's comment and also Kaio's is currently our parking exception is a great example of what you would say is a discretionary type exception process. So you're saying well we do it there why aren't we doing it here? You are exactly right and we are just as equally liable about that code. So we're identifying should we be looking at that code to make it off of a more strict criteria basis. So again the precedent and we talk about this every time we have a parking exception is the precedent that we're setting we we need to maintain and if we deviate we are running into liability of a challenge which we will lose. So that that's a a great example of something we currently have in the code that we are exposed. So as we move forward we're going to filter through this lens especially with the land use code update.

Yeah.

Where are those liabilities? How can we reduce those in areas that we in this group? So I would say again I'd say identifying those areas in a reserve context very if in few instances that you truly believe there is a true interpretive element that is something I would get behind and defend of of the land use authority being an interpretive body to that. But if it is truly criteria based, so that is that is to say you could go you could go discretionary with this option. But I would say it is fully discretionary based off of guiding documents or criteria based. It's when you mix the blend. So if you have criteria and then you're being discretionary, which is basically a conditional use permit, that is the most dangerous territory. Um which is like our parking exception. So this has turned out to be a really great land use discussion. Um maybe if we don't get into our land use ordinance update, there you go. We just did it.

Um so well done and I I commend that thought process. But that is a great option for your recommendation to consider one of those two paths. But it's that the foot in each boat that becomes the most the most uh liability fraud. Yeah. Great. Carolyn, any other comments? God, I am sitting right under a vent and I am just an icicle in these chambers. Wait, wasn't there something they said we could do in the past? Didn't we go through this? Yeah. Hard restart. Go over, click on, click off. It'll act like it's daytime because right now it's on its nighttime setting.

Yeah. Thank you, Joe. It's so cold. Um, okay. Thank you everyone. Thanks so much uh Corey and Johanna for the great explanation and Shaylee Carolyn for the good questions as well. Um so where are we now? Are we we still have the public hearing open? We still don't have any anyone here in chambers and haven't received anything via email. So I am comfortable closing the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Um and then we can take a recommendation if we want. we can deliberate more um up to everybody else. So, public hearing is closed at 6:47 p.m. No, I think this is incredibly smart because I've definitely had a lot of people I've talked to over over the last few years that they're like improving their properties and end up subject to this.

Yeah. And it doesn't make sense. Um but you know the code is is what the code is and and it ties the hands of our of our planning team. Um so I think this is it's an intelligent diversion. Yeah. That's good. Move forward. Yeah. Do you want to make a motion?

Yeah. We're not make we're not changing anything, right? uh you could you could make the motion as it's written um at the recommended motion in the agenda summary with the and then say with the uh verbiage changes noted to item F3 or something like that. All right, I'll get you. Sorry, last uh last quick question. Oh yeah. um city manager instead of community development director being the kind of admin call on this one. What's the reason for that?

Uh in a way one with the fee and Lou um typically that's where the legal exaction process would would land is in our code where it says at discretion of the city that would be the city manager. In very few instances it might be um not even community development but maybe the planning coordinator if it is a planning specific element but as this bridges I would say planning engineering and public works it's a multi-depart type of designation again chap uh title 12 so it it has a larger context uh where city manager might be appropriate for that that even that secondary exception process another really good observation in question.

Got it. I feel uh you know we we have great trust in our community development director and uh their knowledge of uh land use and planning considerations. So just wanted to ask about it. Planning Commission's extreme bias towards Corey noted. I think we're all in agreement there. But it feels like the only thing we're really concerned about is I I get the admin thing. I just think it we want to set ourselves up for success um as a as a whole and making good decisions. So I think we we're all a little nervous about giving one person the power to grant these exceptions. I don't think it matters who the person is.

Yeah. But I I totally get the the admin side of things that if you make it administrative then it doesn't leave us open for the legal. Yeah. and noting that there is always the option to appeal to the land use authority from any of this just like there is with everything else. So um and that is not like some ownorous litigation thing. It's a much lower bar to clear for an applicant. Um so we love our administrative law judges. Uh okay we do. So yeah, Jill, if you go ahead,

I move that the city and planning commission, city of Moab planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the Moab city council for city ordinance 2026-07, an ordinance amending the text of the munab municipal code section 1708060 to update the process by which the city grants exceptions to its requirements governing the construction of sidewalk, curbs, and gutters along with in section F3 in the amendment that it be rewarded for clarity in some of the verbs.

There we go. Okay, we have a we have a motion with a modification from Jill. Is there a second? I second. A second from Shaylee. Uh any further discussion from anyone for the motion on the table? Okay. Uh all in favor of the motion and uh modification say I. I. I.

Okay. Motion passes 40. Thank you everyone. Thank you staff again for the great discussion. Moving right along to uh item 4.2. Oh boy. Consideration and possible recommendation to city council of city ordinance 20268 an ordinance of the city council of Moab amending Moab municipal code title 17 chapter 17.21 commercial residential zone section 17.21.030 area widths and location requirements to increase the building envelope of commercial buildings and section 17.21.040 040 special provisions to decrease the street landscaping strip and chapter 17.09 supplementary requirements and procedures applicable within zones. Section 17.09.220 off streetet parking and loading number of spaces to apply parking spot carryover during use changes to all zones and section 17.09.230 230 off streetet parking and loading location and control facilities to allow parking fee and loo in the C2 zone. That is a lot of stuff. Please explain to us what we are doing and why. Uh Johanna, I assume,

pardon, I went a little crazy with the language. No, I I like the explanation after every code change. That's helpful

actually for me. Okie do. So, the applicant today um is with us uh Courtney Kaiser on behalf of the land owner of 198 East Center. Um, our map is really blown up so we can see all of the spaces that are C2 and the red rectangle is the property from which the applicant is submitting. Um this is that um the aim is to open up possibilities for commercial use on that property and then also all of uh the properties in the C2 zone. Okay, we will get into the code changes. I don't have the original um but we can we can read through the strikeouts. Um so in the C2 zone this is the area with and location requirements. They the applicant is uh suggest proposing that we delete the sentence that requires the 25 ft setback for all uses. And then the following sentence um solidifies that the 25 foot setback is still in place for residential uses. They at the end there they are uh proposing deleting the lot coverage percent requirement as that would in effect limit their setbacks anyways. Um and then they propose an addition of no area

width or location requirements for commercial buildings and structure structures. Um so that in effect not only removes the front 25 ft setback, it also eliminates the side and rear setbacks that are noted in this paragraph. In the special provisions section of the C2 zone, here are our special pro uh provisions. One is that there's a strip of land at least 15 ft um landscaped. They are proposing to change the 15 to 5 ft for all uses. Um this is in our general for all zones. Uh not in the C2 zone anymore. Uh this is number of spaces. This is something that we already practice I'd say most of the time. Um when a when a use is replaced by a new use, um all the parking spaces that were already counted for the last use are uh grandfathered in. Um, for example, if a restaurant, no, if a retail uh was replaced by a restaurant, we're only looking for the new parking spaces that are calculated from adding

the new use. We're not looking for all parking spaces. If we're confused about that one, I can do a better example um after we're done.

Um and then lastly, this uh number seven is um adding C2 to and adding the fee and LU option to C2. Uh right now the fianl option um is only for C3 and then the designated portions of C4 they're proposing adding C2 to also be eligible for that. Okay. Um the nar the whole narrative letter uh is in your packet. Um this is a a bridged version um trying to keep in line with the uh mission statement of the C2 zone um while also opening up development opportunities for everybody in the C2 zone um especially the property um that the applicant is submitting from. And again, just like our last agenda item, these are the questions that we need to consider when um thinking about what our recommendation to city council is going to be. And I believe that is it. Okay. I can go back to any number of these. Um Oh, did we open the public hearing for this item? It's uh it's not

doesn't a public hearing. Oh, it is also a public hearing. It's under the public hearing. Three says public hearing heading. It doesn't say it in the like at the top. Because it's 4.2. Four is public hearing. Oh, okay. I got it. I got it. Okay. Pardon? That seems unclear to me. I hate to be that person. Is this we can uh I'll work with summer on that. That's something that with um city council we've been refining within our agenda structure that it how the items are listed as a public hearing itself and then an action item separately. Yeah.

Over the last years we've kind of duplicated and had redundancies. But yes, this is a public hearing that requires recommendation. Got it.

Okay. I will open the public hearing on item 4.2 at 7 pm. I am just looking through we still don't have anyone here in chambers and haven't received anything here. Um I'm just looking through the letter again. So when I'm picturing this I'm like almost picturing like a like a European fill with tables outside and like having it be a little bit more of a friendly tourist zone. Is that kind of what they're trying to attempt here is by by changing the setbacks, it allows you to have like tables kind of right on the sidewalk. And I think it also increases the buildable envelope. Correct, Corey. I mean, that's ultimately what we're looking at. It would make maybe a property in this zone, which isn't a lot throughout town. There's very specific properties in this zone. I mean, we're sitting in this zone right now here in Chambers, actually. um to just increase the buildable envelope, you know, of of the property. Um so if something wanted to be redeveloped, maybe like the property in question, it makes it it just gives it more

options. They can build it bigger. Yeah.

Yes. Yes. And maybe maybe kind of point of frame of where we want want to go with the remainder of the discussion is um this is an applicant proposed uh text amendment uh rather than the city initiative. So with that Johanna's uh agenda summary is based off the application of the applicant. But we do have the applicant here that maybe could in the the kind of second half of the briefing if the commission so chooses to hear their uh their testimony that they want to provide on behalf of the item. So, it's not really public hearing testimony, but but the um they are technically the applicant of the item to speak to it. So, we I think it would be appropriate to allow them uh time to speak to it, some some option for questions, but then then maybe close that component of it, potentially close the the public hearing, and then deliberate.

Yeah, that makes sense. Um just making sure I'm kind of looking through through everything. Uh yeah, I think that makes sense to me. We still have the public hearing open. Um Courtney, do you want to maybe take a minute and kind of explain the impetus for this? Obviously, we understand that it's the, you know, Taylor's property. I assume he's still the owner. Um over at what is currently Wabishabi, um just across the street here. I know there have been issues in the past with that property with trying to make things work with the existing code, with the existing structures, all that kind of stuff. I assume this would sort of lend itself to a significant redevelopment or at least the potential, you know, if it were sold, it could be, right?

Yes, that's correct. However, um the C2 zone is a zone that I've struggled with with other clients in the past. And if is it possible for me to share my screen? I think a little visual might be helpful for why. I don't know if it is or not. Kelsey, Johanna, do you guys know? Oh, something's happening. Yeah, I think I think it should work. Yeah, given we're operating off Zoomland, that that should share just wait sharing. Okay.

Okay. Are you seeing my screen? Uh, yes. Almost. Yep. There we go.

Okay. So, as as we all know, the C3 is our major commercial zone for the city. And diagrammatically, if we're just looking at setbacks, the C3 zone has no setbacks and a max height of 40 feet. If we look at the C2 zone, the vast majority of these C2 parcels, especially on this side of town, are city or county owned. So, they lend themselves to being more municipal type properties. And then when we look at these setbacks, they have extreme setbacks that I think are tied to those municipal uses where you want big public comments around those kinds of commercial um municipal commercial buildings. Then even if you look to the side to R3, it goes back to much less significant setback, which I think further alludes to the fact that the C2 seems to have been set up as a municipal type zone. Um, and then same thing looking on the other side of town. Much of this C2 property is related with the hospital where you would want those large 25- ft setbacks, especially on a corner lot with two 25- ft setbacks. But again, neighboring properties are four, you see much less significant setbacks. Um, so with this proposal, I really do think it's appropriate. Almost all of the C2, with the exception of this little funky section over here, is directly connected to C3. So, when we originally started talking about this code amendment, we were focusing just in this area because Center Street, as we've all walked down, is a very obvious

place to continue this commercial growth for our community. Um, but we started with Johanna discussing how do we make something that's applicable to everything and the general consensus is commercial growth is something that we need. All of these C2 zones connect to C3. How can we provide an opportunity to grow our downtown? And this seems like a way to do it. If you're going to develop something commercially, you get commercial type setbacks. These types of small lots that are here, it's not even going to be possible because they're already town homes. So, we don't have to worry about the long-term implications of what could happen in these types of lots. Same thing up here where there's residential development already because it's residential and there's no opportunity for that to become commercial. It's not a threat. So

I mean that's the to be clear that's the intrada overnight rentals. That is very commercial. I would not characterize that as residential. Well, as far as the code goes, that would still be residential. Correct. I mean, it's Yeah, the construction type. while they operate. It has a quasi element, but it is technically residential. I think Courtney's Yeah. painting a fair picture.

Yeah. So, there's there's not a a danger that this is going to turn into something different with these proposed code changes. Um, so really I even though I'm representing this particular property and they would have a big benefit to this code change, it's something I genuinely believe in because of our need for more commercial space as a community. That's something that I hear from my neighbors, from my friends, from people wanting to grow their business that they're struggling to find commercial space. And especially now that we have a lot of housing coming online, I think commercial space is going to continue to become um a pinch point for our community and helping it thrive. And I see this as an opportunity to in a very specific and diligent way create that opportunity. Um, and one other thing that I want to mention about the proposal is the fee in loo. We wrote it so that it would only apply if the parcel is on a street with divided parking or um, sorry, center lane parking. So that would only apply to parcels on center street at this point in time. It it couldn't apply to anything over here since there isn't parking in the middle of the road.

That's good. I think that's thanks for making that um distinction frankly and for flagging that because I think that is my I think it's hard you know I am I think in a perfect world we wouldn't be talking about the stuff over on 400 North on the west side of town but it does encompass that and that is a very residential area that does have I think continued pressure from the commercial use that is not like a community commercial use is not how I would characterize it. That is a large overnight rental development where people have lots of trailers, lots of vehicles, lots of noise on busy times and just not wanting to do, at least for the evening, this is where my head's at, is not wanting to add any sort of like intense commercial pressure to what should be a very lowuse commercial zone in that area or the possibility for it. in the future. So, I really appreciate I think the parking thing would have been a headache probably because there's already issues with people parking all over and pulling, you know, like in front of the old hospital over there um on that side of town and particularly like on the corner by like T&H and Snake Oil in the gym and and those kind of things too. So,

I I like how that was written um because it it directly links to the availability of street parking and the estab actually established intentional street parking, not just like incidental we're just going to put vehicles wherever we can cram them kind of street parking. So, I I appreciate that

and I'm glad you mentioned that because one other thing I want to bring up is that right now we also have the fact that our parking regulations are they will limit the size of commercial development. Period. The end. It's very difficult to make parking and commercial work together on a small lot. So I think that that is still a very limiting factor that we can count on at this point to make sure that the scale of any kind of commercial that goes in as a result of this code change is appropriate scale for the area that it's in. And that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions though.

That's great. Um, thanks so much Courtney Corey I Corey Johanna I have a few just logistics questions. I you know just obviously we are thinking about a particular property that the applicant has in mind but this would apply everywhere in the C2 um if we were to recommend the code changes and council were to to make those changes. So that's what I'm thinking of looking at everywhere that there's seed to, which of course is always the rub, right? Um what So is it okay if I just sort of ask for like an example of maybe what something could be on redevelopment specifically? So So thinking about like intrada again, let's say, so now it's a residential type use in the commercial zone. um if that were to be a changed use to like offices or if they were to decide that this is where the market's going. We're going to raise the condos and put try to put something else in that zone like whether it's a just a regular building or a shop or something like that. I guess how do you see this these code changes sort of playing out in that instance and maybe the same thing for so maybe residential type is the first question if that were to be a use change in type of use um and then the second question would be sort of same question with like the orthodontists that's over there or maybe like uh I think that like the like Riverside plumbing is in this zone right over on that side of town, too. So, kind of what would be the the

biggest baddest kind of development that you could potentially see in this zone with these changes like big and bad just being like the highest and best use I guess not bad necessarily, like negative. I don't mean that negatively. So, two questions. Johanna, if you want to take a stab at that to begin.

Yeah, absolutely. So, um I think it's wise to look at Entrada. We labeled it as no risk, which I think is accurate for the coming years. Um but in the grand scheme of planning and zoning timelines, it definitely could be redeveloped. Whether we'll have the C2 zone for that long, that we'll we'll see about. Um

but um right now somebody could take a lot on Intrada and build right up to the lot line. We're going to have the same height. Um so we're not going to um be too big uh volumewise, but we're going to be able to be much wider. Um, and they're going to have less landscaping requirement in the front and they can do a third um, of the parking as fee and loo. Um, if we're doing infill, then they'll probably only have to pro, it's hard to say how many parking spaces they'll have to provide because that'll depend on what the use is and what they're bringing in. Um but we will have the whatever the excess parking um that's created from the new use a third of that could be fee and loo. Um let's see what else. Um

would that one be available for fee and loo since they don't have the center parking over there? No, it wouldn't. Correct. Yeah. Um

maybe maybe the better example actually I'm remembering over there there's actually an empty lot that is right next to the Entrada that is intermittently on and off for sale slashcovered in elm trees that then get cut down that then come back um um that what what is like the largest structure with the less setbacks and the sort larger building envelope with less like landscaping requirements that you could see on that empty lot that of course is right next to like Orchard Villa and those that residential area right there. Orchard Villa and like Grand O I think is across the street.

Well, without Oh, go ahead. Sorry.

Without the lot percentage uh coverage, it would just be however big the lot is. Um and then fitting, there's so many variables. fitting. However big the lot is minus how many parking spaces they need, I guess would be your answer. It's hard to give a um full answer to that. Um if I might jump in right there. There's there's two paths and then this is uh I think I'll have my answer slightly separate. So this is in response to I believe this question is maybe break this into a development envelope type of representation of them use the biggest baddest I understand what you mean not necessarily that it's bad we need all all of the things um what I might say could be perceived as the most flagrant given this is a commercial residential zone meant to be buffering

service station for example is currently in that that that use that's usually been one of the more fearful uh uses that could be applied in that zone. Now, from a development envelope perspective, maybe maybe not that bad. Uh, in fact, it it could probably be less of a development envelope than many other things. However, the use activity, does that make sense in in adjacency to some of these residential areas or within itself, which is a mixeduse zone? Now to a development envelope perspective with money out not being an issue nor groundwater you could have potentially unsized lot subgrade parking with a development envelope that you might see in the C3 zone property to line to property line with subgrade parking even without the fee and loo or total exception waiverss um you could see a mass you know mass of construction 40 foot uh property land proper plan construction office building you you use use non-specific the infill could be what it would be. Um, so that's maybe all the two I I think trying to address what was that question. But yeah, when I think we're ready, I do have a commentary that I'll answer in my I think my own way. Is there I mean I know that Courtney said that she's struggled in the C2 zone um with with clients, but is there a reason why we're asking for the entire C2 zone to change their setbacks instead of just

reszoning this one parcel? They tried that actually um year or two prior when

uh the property owner came as the applicant that time. Um, and it was with the intent of making things super duper easy for a a renter or for a tenant like Wabishabi to occupy the space. Um, we managed to figure out specific workarounds for them to use the space now without having an upzone, but the original proposal was to make the C2 into C3, if I'm remembering correctly,

which felt like spot zoning. And so we didn't do that I think is the big picture summary um because it was R2 or C2 surrounding basically um and that would have really at least how our code is opened our code is written now would have really opened up the potential uses I think in a way like it makes sense on center street that that is a continuation of of our tourism growth but but that might be a great segue whenever Right. That teed me up perfectly, I think. You're welcome, Cory. Thank you.

No, I I think the the story of the property and the use on this property is really consistent with probably many of the clients Courtney's talking about and what we've I don't think it's uh a secret that even the staff are not uh great fans of the C2 nor the C1 zones. I think it was it was a adequate attempt to navigate what would be mixeduse land use. I I think it was probably um it was inadequate and it just it purely was there's many holes in that code. there's many development issues. Um, all of those coming to light when land use or property owners are trying to utilize their properties. And in many instances, as Courtney has pointed out, properties that are zoned that, meaning they may have existed in some capacity u prior to the zoning and that zoning be applied to top on top of it could never redevelop or comply. They just inherently don't meet the standards. It can't. Um, so we've created an issue within that zone, which again, it was it was a valid attempt where I think they were looking big picture and did not take in to account what the on-site issues were. So that brings us again to maybe this particular story of well the zone that exists that would give the the property or what it is they need for on-site and what would seem from a very sightsp specific context to make sense a continuation I think as maybe it was Shaye saying a continuation of center street drawing up the commercial district that in a way would work um but looking at the C3 zone as a central commercial zone and how it's identified as a corridor type commercial use implying that we should have buffering ing zones as it expands out to the the R3 zone or our center center um town site area is that we we just we live in a really confined space. In fact, we were speaking about today our our conference that our our entire city

limits is 4.5 square miles basically four miles long by a mile and a half wide. Meaning the ability to buffer using zoning is really limited. you're having one or maybe two parcels of a particular zone to try to attempt buffering through zoning. So that's where we're seeing the pressures of inconsistencies. I think Courtney's observation of it seems that they kind of use C2 and try to apply it in this way of some of the civic spaces or civic type uses and capture those um allowing for commercial civic. That is all to say I think what the applicant has identified when we went through said we don't the planning commission and the application was we don't feel C3 is appropriate. The next response was well if the zone change is not appropriate can we change the text of the current zone it's in which is what was essentially the call to action here trying to make that work. Um, what I'll say with that is um the the elements identified are are are really sound and it's really an an appropriate attempt. The only what I'm I'm skipping through a couple of points here, but just to land on where I'm getting at is this change at the the threshold of a major land use overhaul that would then be consecutively followed with a general plan update that is going to be a massive general plan update to reinvision our zoning districts where C2 and C1 as they're currently described don't have any place. I think the sophistication or lack thereof right now is calling for a massive amount of sophistication in Moab.

Um, so there are many elements in here I agree with. It is that the timing of this comes at when I think the community needs to reidentify what is the entire corridor of center street where I don't believe C2 the way it is currently organized makes any sense. It's the same discussion we had about our industrial zone and that we have the same industrial zone in two totally separate areas of our of our city that are that have the same development standards. They have totally different characteristics and uh would call to different uses. I and so I I hate to be this voice but I I application is very well warranted and it has a really valid attempt at doing these elements. the conception of it though may fall we're called to action to do which is evaluate this on a much larger scale and in a more consistent theicity. I I feel from my perspective we're not we're not far enough away from a major overhaul where this

will thisable we're very eminently going to try to increase viability in a way that conceived. So all these these pitfalls that we were talking about of uh buffering or any other elements will be more defensively placed after these um and that's not obvious response to the applicant because this is the same piece I I told the property owner at the time which is all of the inadequacy the code in being able to redevelop your property or adaptively reuse or infill which is not to say that there is any elements of taking that the property can continue the uses available to him that exists now. We're not taking anything away but the eval ability to diversify and and move forward which is what all of our property owners need owners need through almost all of our districts. So this isn't just one particular use. C2 and C1 are particularly flagrant in this way. Um, but we're we're as the staff really wanting to advance the the entire community in in this way that this zone attempt is trying to, but in a non-coordinated way. I'm very fearful what the repercussions will be as well as the the communities that adj are adjacent to these properties may feel this is um short of the public engagement that it may warrant.

That's kind of where I am. This seems I completely understand. I think a lot of it makes a lot of sense. It's the timing, but also the timing being that, you know, particularly this applicant, this property owner, we have already told them once like there are other ways for you to accomplish these goals. This is a way that we I remember saying at the time like there are things about the C2 that could be changed to make things more feasible on your property that maybe is a better route to go than trying to do an upzone. Um I I'm I'm fairly sure that was part of the discussion at one point. And so it seems like that is what they're trying to do now. I think in a way that makes sense. I think there are things about this that give me more of a headache than others. Um and I don't know if the applicant would be I I mean we obviously can make recommendations in part or recommendations in whole to city council. I think the supplementary 7 uh about parking with the center that makes so much sense to me. I don't foresee that being a headache in the future in any way, shape, or form. And frankly, I think it's a kick in the butt that maybe we need a little bit on parking. And I think it's also very consistent with decisions and discussions that we've made in the past. um that just personally looking at this all I have no issue. I think exactly how you said, but I also don't want, you know, this is the public hearing for this tonight. Technically, legally, yes, it would go to city council for final deliberation and things often happen in this town where folks don't realize it at the planning commission level. It gets to city council, people notice, they come and they they weigh in, which I know council would provide us space

for. But um this also does seem to have a very big potential snowball effect that I don't know that we have thought through yet. And I would really hate to just be like, well, we'll make the recommendation and then city council can deal with it. Um that is an option. Obviously, we are not the final decision makers on this. And I do think there's some should be some like really robust notice and discussion that happens for some of the these proposals which probably would need to be at city council at this point. Um so I also see the utility in making a positive recommendation so that city council can like more closely examine hear from the public and deliberate. Um, that's just kind of where my head's at and I'm curious, you know, what what others think. I think it's the um particularly here, let me see. Sorry. Oh boy. Uh, Johanna, just FYI, the agenda summary is not clickable in the agenda.

Yeah. Yeah, you can. Um, the ordinance, the letter, and the public hearing ordinance are, but not the agenda summary. I don't know if you can email that. I was able to click it. That might be a It is not working for any of us. Yeah, it's not working for us. The title is actually written kind of at the page break. If you hover your mouse, there becomes a clickable blank area that opens up the um the summary. I'm trying. Where is it? Where? Like right under documents. If you just kind of move your cursor. Oh, thank you. Yep. Thanks everyone. Mine's not working. Okay. So, like on the previous page, if you ever write under the word documents,

start slowly move your mouse upwards until an arrow shows up. Kay's on an iPad. We don't we don't claim that. Oh, that might be why. That might be why.

What I mean, kind of along the same lines with Kaia and Corey, when I'm looking at that that map, I just was going, "Oh my gosh, there's so many adjustments that have to be made." Yeah. Um, and it made me really nervous to to do an entire zone that I think would could be potentially an issue, especially when we're literally right in the middle of rewriting code and that we know that there's going to be an overhaul because I just don't think I think it makes sense with this one property. I don't know that it makes sense for every C2. And so that that make that would make me really nervous to do it on like a whole um and that's kind of where I am like like we said like if we're making a change to the building the buildable envelope for an entire zone. I'm just thinking about it just that way. literally that title that's like

that's like front page of the TI kind of like it's a big like news I think and I just want to make sure that we're treating it as such right it's if that makes sense not that I necessarily disagree at all with what's being proposed and I am

you know I I I certainly I don't think like legally we're beholden to anyone but I do think the property owner in particular and the applicant in this instance have tried many things and I want to be mindful of that and also try our dangest to do as much as we possibly can right now understanding that like yes the code change is happening the code rehaul or overhaul is happening but is happening is still like probably a year from implementation and so that's that's also hard when you're trying to either sell or build or plan or whatever ever and I don't want to put I don't want to put everyone in the C2 like in limbo in the meantime. Um if that

really quick if again I'm so sorry to continue to interject but off I think when we're talking substantial districtricting changes or substantial development changes that it that's no light task. Now, if we're tweaking or amending to improve code, that's something that in fact our attorney is recommending to us all the time. You need to be more agile to respond to inadequacies in the code. But if we're if we're moving into a redefinition territory, and if I may, I'm going to read from the objectives and characteristics section of the C2. So it's under the subsection 2 is the C2 commercial residential zone is characterized by attractive and well-maintained commercial and residential buildings set back from public streets and surrounded by landscaped yards in order to accomplish the objectives and purpose of this title and stabilize protect essential characteristics of the zone. Uh the regulations are set out as such. So this is to say again I was at the very I am the first one to probably get my pitchfork out and come against the C2 but it is not my uh it is not it is it is not my position to make that determination on behalf of the community and the community at the time they created the zoning decision that's what they believed. So until in my belief we go back to the community and say we've evolved here here are the findings of fact that show we need to move until the community authorizes that I would believe there are enough changes in this proposal that actually deviate from the original proposal that this is no longer tweaking of development standards. This is this we're redistricting by a reverse engineered option. To the credit of the applicant and the product owner, they have highlighted all of the deficiencies that I will also be highlighting. But it is not our job to be judge, jury, and executioner of what the intent is without amending the what

would be the zoning district's code and the and the general plan. So all of these things I'm going to be using to advance and advocate for better systems. And we already I think from the planning staff have a fairly clear idea of where we want to take that as far as what we would promote from a professional recommendation of a civics score of a corridor overlay or even a corridor district of a small area plan including center street including third south including for uh first north. So there are a number of things that we see have to change to as Courtney pointed out the housing wheel is beginning to turn and as everyone knows the pistons that I have the economics piston is immediately second and if we're deficient there our housing is going to suffer. We have to hap have these happen in some concurrency. So, while the urgency of the the applicant and the owner is present and to your point, Kaia, we've been saying this for well since I arrived at the city and it's been on the backs of many people pushing this agenda that finally we have funded and we are actively approving and approaching the first land use code revision which we're now budgeting for and advocating for our general plan to be done in 2027. And I'm going to say that that is the year in which I'm hoping the general plan would be done. Now, for these property owners, that could be that's lifetimes of potential tenants of potential infill. But my job is not to look at short term. It is to look at the health and growth of our community over long periods of time, you know, minimums of 10 to 20 years. Um, so it it's really bitter to speak in a way that is not in a favorable recommendation to advance this at this time because I am, but it it has to be done in my opinion in a in a in a more coordinated way. So, it this is really

bittersweet and to continue to put this property owner off in this way. Um, but this is a big enough change I I would be concerned about the repercussions and defensibility of moving away from the objectives and characteristics of the zoning despite me not being in favor of it.

I agree. Are there would it be appropriate to recommend a couple of the changes or a few of the proposed changes with our own modifications to city council because I do think frankly for me it's 17.24030 that I have the the spidey creepies about a little bit. Um, everything else I think 2440A I understand. But in the spirit of like something but not everything to not open a can of worms without going through that whole huge process, like you said, I think maybe 10 feet would be appropriate. That would still increase for the applicant. It would still be in keeping with the character of like a nicely landscaped area on the frontage of the property for fitting with the intent of the zone while giving an extra five feet that does not have to be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping standards adjacent to a public street to maybe give more area for parking to give more area for whatever because I do think that's something that cuz what's our standard sort of landscaped area for like a C3 building.

There's no landscaped area. Yeah. Um so to me and and our standard landscaped area for like R2 would be what? 15 feet.

Okay. So to me this is a transition zone between the C3 and the R2. And so it makes sense to have a requirement that is halfway between the C3 and the R2. Um so 10 feet I'm I'm I'm trying to do this like not arbitrarily here, but um to me 10 feet makes sense because it's still kind of like like we said it's it's the trans we're looking at this as the transition. This is these like community nodes we've talked about so often. This is really like what some of the C2 zones are in town. Um, it's nice landscaping buffering the frontage of the use. um you would still have the area width and location requirements which I know is the major headache here for the applicant and that totally stinks but my hope is that this allows a good deal of flexibility while still not kicking the door wide open when we are in that process right now. So saying the the supplementary replacement of existing building, that makes sense to me. Additional parking not required when existing buildings are replaced with new buildings. That doesn't seem like that's a massive can of worms that's going to bite anybody in the butt later on. Same with the FEL applying to this zone. I think that makes sense. I think it's fair, frankly, um, when we do that for property in C3 all the time that's on the exact same street, like right next door to some of the stuff. Um, and then maybe the 24.040A having that recommendation be that it be changed a strip of land at least 10 feet in width adjacent to public streets. Corey,

thank you. Um, with respect to that comment, I think you've highlighted a really important thing that I would acknowledge and also think would be appropriate is when we're looking at that there there's numbers of of chapters included in this. Um, it's trying to approach what is we'll just call it a parking issue or parking parking solutions. Yeah, that is an entirely separate category outside of the C2 zone. So, this to say that we are adjusting a particular zone and its characteristics by amending that code. I don't think there's a linkage. You're amending an observed

uh element of those regulations in which you're responding to the realities tweak the tweak tweaking of the code as I said earlier which is as the applicants pointed out defensible and specific in a way that I think that very much well could be supported and I think the staff could support that um in that area. as far as setbacks, buffering, those types of elements, I would be apprehensive in moving, as we've been discussing with our land use code update into even if it's a mitigated, you know, 25 ft to 10 uh versus zero. Those are arbitrary elements that is our rewrite we are hoping to remove. If there is if there is a buffer, it is a it is supported with the findings of fact that would be characteristic of what we're pursuing. So if we have a corridor. So that's to say in the future I would hope that a zero lot line or at least in some ways if that that it's tough in this way but along frontages of a corridor say your your frontage to center street on a particular property could be zero and would make a lot of sense in that context. But then the setbacks depending on the uses and everything else which again is much more complicated. um want to be preserved to ensure uh impacts are beingated between uses. That's really the touchy thing. So that is all to say I I don't want to move from one arbitrary bucket into another without the findings of fact of the process to support it. Now in an regulatory adjustment which in the parking code that's a separate that's a separate animal and separate argument which I would say if we can separate those I think there's a really real uh potential for staff and the recommendation to move forward if we were to piece those apart now that I think Ka you laid out and the applicant has this option they have the due

process right to move their application all the way through unobstructed as they wish we are purely an advisor advisory body. So if we propose a alternative that can go either and replace theirs if they elect to do that or run in tandem and then there can be a staff recommendation also. So now we are up to by the time it gets to city council three possible drafts and then of course city council can always apply how they'd like. So it can get complicated and start starting to to fork quickly. Um, but I think what you're on to could be a way to respond to this applicant, give them some tools in the meantime that are appropriate without potentially undermining what should be a full planning practice.

Yeah, that makes sense. You know, like you said, it this would this would be in front of council regardless whether we forward a positive or a negative recommendation or a positive recommendation with modifications or a partial recommendation or whatever that looks like. Um, but I just think, you know, we we see these more often. We're the more deliberative body on these things, even if we're just administrative. And it's nice to sort of talk through what the options are hopefully with the applicant who obviously could go, you know, all or nothing to city council or it might be nice to have these sort of alternate proposals like is it still worth it to the applicant if this is all that might be feasible right now to get as far as code changes? My hope is yes. Um, obviously we don't know what city council would do, but Miles will take our deliberation and explain it to everybody else. He's taking good notes. I think he's taking

um but yeah, like I feel like we're the body to maybe make these sort of alternate option proposals hopefully to help it make more sense for city council while also realizing Miles, y'all could obviously do whatever the heck you want to and go a different direction. So I love being administrative only, frankly. So overwhelmed. Um, super glad to not be an elected official. Uh, yeah. I don't know. Um, Carolyn, do you have thoughts? I'm putting you on the spot here, but you're also always very thoughtful about these things. So,

yeah, that was a lot of very um very thoughtful discussion just kind of taking it all in. I think I have the I mean, first I think all of the proposed amendments are pretty logical and directly correlate to all of the goals that the applicants highlighted in the general plan and um kind of principles of what we're looking to do with the expansion of commercial opportunity in a town that really needs that. So, I think everything looks really good, but I also have some hesitations around kind of the scope of the revamp that's being proposed and whether this is the right um kind of pathway for that with the full code update coming down the pipes. And I echo Cory's sentiment that and Kai's sentiment that it's we our intent isn't to keep C2 property owners in this limbo of we're working on the update, we're working on the update, just hold on. Um so to that extent, if there was kind of a middle ground, like something some of the options that Kyle was proposing, I think that could be a good path forward for us. But I also agree with all of the um concerns that others already voiced about wanting it, you know, if we did move forward with all of the proposed amendments, wanting there to be kind of more robust public engagement around that because it does change the nature um of the zone as it's currently defined. and maybe we don't agree with the way that it's currently defined, but that's kind of what's guiding this decision-m currently until the the land use um update comes through. So um yeah, all that to say that I I so far am feeling the most compelled by the kind of middle ground um recommendation that Ka proposed of not forwarding a positive recommendation

for all of this, but for select elements that would still increase opportunity in the short term for um the applicants and others in the C2 zone. you know, we we really hope and believe that the land use code update will come through in 2027, but you never really know what what things might happen that could derail that. So, we don't want to keep everybody in perpetual limbo. And um know that these folks have been creative and persistent in trying different routes to increase business opportunity on their property. And Courtney gave lots of examples of others being in a similar plight. So, those are my thoughts. Thanks, Carolyn. Joe,

I agree um with Carolyn. I'm I been kind of on the fence when I first read this and my thoughts were we can't just change everything all at once. That's that's a lot to ask, you know, like what what's that impact on our community? Um, I am definitely more on the middle ground as well. Like I don't want to see a building come right up to the sidewalk without some type of landscaping. I I don't want to be the a city in our little town. You know, I don't want big cement buildings. Um, I you know, the Vanloo parking that makes total sense. If it's a bigger building, you're going to need more parking. and it's not going to happen in a certain location because you can only build so much and have so much parking. So, that to me is not going to be um something that is negative to me. Um but yeah, I'm I I don't agree with the whole positive motion. I am kind of more in that middle ground as well. And but I like Caroline said I I don't want somebody to just be in limbo for the next six eight months but or a year we are working on new codes. We are trying to revamp that and get it more up to date for the community because it is so very old. Um so that's that's where I stand. So

I uh I'm echoing everything you guys said. I mean, I'm totally on board if we were to make updates to the parking things in general. I think the rest of it I really struggle and I know we're revamping the whole thing because I really would like a robust study of these different locations. Um, and how I mean we have lots of commercial that doesn't have landscaping strips already. And so, but I but like how does that impact what's right next door um to these zones? And I I just think it needs to be robust. I don't want them to be in limbo. So, I would lean more towards wanting to make specific exceptions to a property right now rather than trying to change an entire zone.

Um I would lean more towards that for me. Yeah. And we I can't remember when we discussed that, but that's Yeah. Yeah. When whenever it was. But yeah, it was a Miles nose. had specific exceptions that were based on the the use the proposed use to me. Yeah. And it was a robust conversation.

But like for example, if they wanted to take the existing structure down and rebuild something new entirely, that wouldn't be a like based thing. Yeah. That would be what we're talking about right now. So I I for me I don't I don't really want to touch the actual size that the building can be in the zone until we can robustly create a new plan. Sounds like a much larger conversation. It feels like that to me too. But I would be okay touching the parking because I agree with that. That needs to be changed after city. What do you think about what do you think about landscaping? Uh to me I think that's part of the more robust conversation.

Okay. I I think decreasing it to 10 feet still just becomes a so many whatifs in other C2, not so much on this property specifically, but it's just I I would rather have that inclusive of the the larger conversation.

I know. I feel so bad because that really doesn't like fix anything with the buildability of it at all. its its parking requirements which I think well it I guess if there's not been a fee in L option that is pretty significant um for me I think um the logic of a strip of landscaping that is halfway between the two zones that the C2 is kind of the transition point for makes sense and I think our concern is that we want more people to weigh in about it who would be affected from across the community. So I would feel comfortable, you know, including that

modified recommendation to go to 10 ft knowing that at city council there will be that opportunity for more of a public forum and input um to get reaction to that. And of course, city council will also be discussing um and can kind of weigh in with their opinions about whether it makes sense um through this opportunity or should wait for the future more holistic overhaul.

What do you think, Jill? Shay, I got a feeling for where Shay's at. Have a feeling for where Caroline's at. Jill, I think you might be the deciding vote on this. cheese. Well, and let me be clear, like I don't, you know, no, I don't know that I'm against this by any means. I Right. I am actually a huge proponent of people being able to use their land for whatever they want. Yeah. Um, so like that's I have an internal war here of like, okay, we're trying to like operate within this code and clean up our code. Me too. Me too. And over here going, yeah, it's your land. You should be able to do whatever you want with it. Just be considerate. But how do we control that people are considerate? We are quot Just be nice, guys. That's all we have to do. Just put that. That's literally the control we have of consider, you know, like so.

Yeah. Oh, Courtney's raising your hand. Courtney, go for it. Am I allowed to say something? Yes, please do. If the setbacks aren't changing, the landscape buffer doesn't really matter. So, I don't want y'all to feel like you have to waste time on that decision. That that helps give us Yeah. and and also know that we're open to if there is some way to adjust the C2 that everybody feels more comfortable with like keeping the 50% coverage

but reducing setbacks for commercial buildings. If there's a way that you feel that that wouldn't create a long-term issue and I really value Corey's input on this too if there's a way to do that. Um, I mean, there's nothing cut and hard in stone in what we're putting here. Any kind of movement away from the 25 foot corner setbacks that can help for a property like this would be welcome.

Okay, that's great. And Corey, would there So, say we make that partial positive recommendation where we just focus on the parking and we just say these are the code changes we're recommending based on what the applicant put together. We are forwarding a negative recommendation on the 24.030 and 24.040A. That is still something. Could the applicant have an amended? Could they come with the as it's written now? A negative recommendation on as it's written now on that component from the planning commission.

I'm just thinking about like notice requirements, right? Discussion. No, you're right. You're right on. And I was like contemplating that as we're as we're talking. Would they be able to sort of like to have that sort of like second negotiation idea in their back pocket come city council or would they need to go through this process again if it were to originate with the applicant?

Yeah. My my limited understanding in that and we'd want to obviously coordinate with our legal review is that if we're if we are substantially changing the uh the application it could warrant that it it hadn't had proper uh review and due process of that public hearing element. Now if we're that is to say okay we have the application and we are going to accept these and not accept these. Well, you haven't con you haven't substantially changed it. You've just accepted portions of it. Now, if we start moving moving numbers around, that could potentially still be acceptable within ranges, but if there are things that were not contemplated or are significantly different, and that's where it becomes gray is what becomes substantially different. Um,

so legally I think we c we could and even in the in the moment our attorney will be available to say hey we we've negotiated outside of the context of what can be adopted tonight but they could go back through and we just we cure that noticing element by going back through for a particular element or the whole the whole recommendation over again. Um so so pragmatically yes there are opportunities for us to move forward in those ways uh just as you've described either partial or even within adjustments so long as we we think that's defensible and reasonable to say hey the public's been notified we're we're tweaking again back to this idea of tweaking we're tweaking it we're not substantially altering in a way that the the public wasn't going to be aware of it as it's moving forward

well and I think importantly we're not changing 25 you know this would be a scaling back of what public had been notified about. That would certainly be my argument as the applicant would be if you're contemplating something that is less. Yeah. Right. It's it went from 25 and they've requested zero. Well, we went 10. Well, you're within that realm. It wasn't. You've increased it or you even, you know, can't go below zero. Um, so yeah, that I think that would technically still still qualify something that could be um

I guess that would be my my hope would be that there might be a like if not X then Y situation. Maybe that staff and the applicant work on between now and when city council has this in front of them. um maybe understanding and like I know obviously we have no idea what city council thinks about this but you know giving that sort of option B where the applicant does still really I think it's super smart and obviously makes tons of sense to ask for what you really want out the gate and that is what the applicant has done that is what would make this pencil out the very best um in that zone for uh development redevelopment and then current property owners. Awesome. That makes sense. But I think if there's if there's room to scale it back slightly where it would still be meaningful enough to go through the process, it would probably be wise to have that like out there if that makes sense.

Yeah. I think it is really quick on this is that as we go forward, I think I think we're teeing ourselves up for possibly three three different applications. the the staff recommended the applicant original and then then a maybe a a quasi or even a friendly amendment that the the applicant may accept, but they're still going to push their their application. Again, being quite frank with this property that with with the the impetus, the property owner,

I I I think I I really do support what's being proposed. it is the fact that it is universal and throughout the C2 which I don't believe uh should be the same districts. So we're going to be applying changes that make sense to this property in that context across in in another area where it should be a totally different district. Not unlike the same arguments we used during the industrial uh reszone discussion oh or text amendment of the industrial reszone discussion. So that's to be said. I I think at least from my perspective, Johanna will be collaborative in this that staff it'd be very unlikely we would recommend any changes to the development standards in the C2 zone. As staff,

I support them, but I will not be recommending them personally and as staff, we'll come up with that with legal uh it's a it's not just the two of us, it's the staff. It's a comprehensive overview because of the defensibility points of that. So with that said, um the recommendations that you guys might cultivate, I think I think try to try to approach something as reasonable and within the boundaries of what's been proposed as best you can. Um but yeah, I I think parking could be the area that I think we absolutely could approach from staff and still recommend that tweak. Um but yeah, anything within the development envelope right now. Um because in short I I there's a vision that can that is being cultivated for this property and that center street district and the overall civics's district that will give I believe or what if the public through the public process determines off the staff recommendations this property or what they need but it needs to be comprehensive and collated with everything else. Um so I yeah I'm very very apprehensive to touch the development standards at this time. Hope that makes sense as far as the three applications and how they're so when we're presenting to council, they're going to be upset with that.

We've talked about green light, green light, green lights. Those usually are fairly effective. If we have yellows and reds and mixes of greens, the council's going to be and you know, Miles may speak to that or not. Um how effective that approach might be. So, um that's I think kind of leaving the plate. I've spoken a lot on this tonight. I really appreciate the time and and willing to hear me through some of these thoughts. Um especially it's just such a a warranted and worthwhile discussion and I just it's so bitter to be at this timing piece of this uh for me. So um yeah, as far that's technically how we move forward and very likely how we would um handle that as staff

and we know it's unfair. Yeah, I know. I just it it gives me heartburn because I totally understand. But, you know, to to be frank, I think if we were to make a positive recommendation on everything tonight, I think it would still face the exact same scrutiny um when it got to city council. Um, and I think hopefully the deliberation that we've had is helpful understanding that like there might be, you know, if there if there are and it's it's obvious the applicant has already worked really hard on this, which is also what frustrates me about the whole thing. Um, I think Miles wants to talk.

Yeah. Um, Miles, be I will say be careful. Yep. You're welcome to weigh in, but don't say anything that could be like predetermined deliberative for counsel.

Certainly. Uh I just wanted to speak to what Corey said in the sense that like I have lengthy notes about the discussion you guys just had and um I think council would appreciate understanding your perspective and having kind of like a a clear note on your perspective. if you gave a recommendation that was specific to you, we could compare that with staff and then have our own deliberation. Um because of course, yeah, I've got notes on all this, but um if you for are in agreement on something uh that could be of interest to council. How's that? That's fine.

Thank you. But the royal we um I didn't see a um staff recommendation in the packet. Did I miss that or was it it wasn't in there on purpose? Uh yeah, that's correct. Um because of what Corey's been talking about, how much we support this um but also procedurally wish things were different. It's just um a neutral But you are going to be putting a specific recommendation in front of council as well. That probably won't be neutral.

I think depending on how how the recommendation advances, we will probably make comment on whether the planning commission or the applicant recommendation is uh as it approaches. So that is to say planning commission recommended this. we agree or disagree with that recommendation uh versus commentary on the applicants if that so is that balanced I think Johanna how you you frame that. Yeah. Yeah. Um indeed and also um we still need to close this public hearing at some point just as a note I believe. Okay. Yeah. Wait, I did close it. No. Oh, did I not? Not yet. Um

we have not closed this one. We have not closed this one. Okay. Apologies.

Uh we have not closed it. Uh I will go ahead and close the public hearing now at 8:05 p.m. Um we can continue to discuss. Courtney, thank you for your time. I know this is a long very drawn out process. You have been here before and we appreciate your professionalism and expertise always. So thank you. Um, yeah, I think it makes sense to me to make a positive recommendation on the chapter 17.092202os change and 17.09230B change, but not 2430 and 2440A is probably where I am.

I agree. thinking that maybe there might be something still that applicant staff can come together about that would provide what's needed right now. Want to take a crack at um I can I can take I can do this motion. I try not to do motions as the chair, but I can do this motion. Um assuming that that roughly sounds good to everyone else. I think we're all kind of on the same page with this one. Okay. Um

yeah, I think um you know, Miles said that he took good notes, but as if you feel wellprepared, Miles, to kind of represent the conversations that we had where I think we're all in favor of the um of minimizing the required setbacks to make it easier to maximize the utility of commercial lots, but just wanting it to go through more robust like public scrutiny before making a change of that scale. Um, then I would feel good about the negative recommendation on those two and the positive on the other two.

Yeah, I think that makes sense to me, Carol, and I do think that represents it well. I understanding that it's a long drawn out process. I am not saying that we need like a full stop on all zonewide cone changes until our whole code is overhauled. I don't think I think that probably rings true for everyone. I think we can make small tweaks along the way. I think Corey was saying that we're actually encouraged to do that as well. It's just what's going to be a more robust lasting like more robust lasting change. We don't want a change in place that's just going to be there and then it's going to be like substantially different six months from now when the the whole code gets overhauled. But not just saying like, "Well, just hang on. and it's coming for ever. Um is is I think probably where we're at. Not that like we don't want to touch this or we don't want council to touch this until the whole code is changed. Um if there if there are things that can really help existing property owners in the C2 deal with this because I do think it's hard that it's an all or nothing. You literally go from like nothing to a pretty large setback and a pretty large minimum area requirement. um that to me is not a transition. That's like a hard cut off. That's a hard line. And the C2 is supposed to be that transition zone. So I do think that is ripe for change in keeping with the like Corey said, the original spirit of why this was put in place in the first place. Um okay, I'm gonna give this a shot. I move that the city of Moab planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the Moab city council for city ordinance 20268 and ordinance of the city council of Moab amending Moab municipal code title

17 chapter 17.09 supplementary requirements and procedures applicable within zones section 17.0922 0922 off streetet parking and loading not loafing number of spaces uh to apply parking spot carryover during use changes to all zones and section 17.09230 off streetet parking and loading location and control facilities to allow parking fee and loo in the C2 zone. we'll say as proposed with that center parking um uh requirement. Um I move that the city of my planning commission forward a negative recommendation on uh and title 17 chapter 17.21 commercial residential zone section 17.21030 211030 area width and location requirements to increase the building envelope of commercial buildings and section 17.2140 special provisions to decrease the street landscaping strip.

I second it. Okay. And Shaylee seconds the motion. Uh is there any discussion about that in favor? Would that cover it, Corey? So it's a positive recommendation on those two components and negative on the other. Yes.

With with I think reasoning um as discussed. Uh okay. Um if there's not any further discussion uh we can entertain uh or not entertain a motion. Gez we have that I did that um vote. Um, all in favor of the motion on the table, uh, positive recommendation on two of the code changes, negative recommendation on two others. Uh, please say I. I. I. I.

Okay. Uh, motion passes for zero. Courtney, thank you so much. I am so sorry that this was not entirely just easy and great. Um, and I really appreciate everything you're trying to do and always do. And I hope I hope some more uh helpful things happen between now and when this process is over for you at the city council. So, Miles, thank you for frankly advocating for the people in the C2 for something. So, thank you everybody. I appreciate your time and deliberation. Yeah. Thank you, Courtney. Have a good night.

You too. Bye. kills me. I can break. Well, we're almost done. I'm gonna say we're almost done. Um, we have two small things left. Number five, action item. Election of planning commission chair and vice chair because we forgot to do it in January, you guys. Whoopsie. Um,

yeah. No. So currently, um, I am the chair, Jill is the vice chair. Um, we do have a full slate of five commissioners right now. Um, how this works typically, I don't know if Johanna or Corey, you want to maybe lead on this item is it's just a someone moves for somebody to be chair and then someone moves for someone to be vice chair and we vote. So, Got it. And we can break those into two motions. Um, of course, two two actions, if you will. Um, which I think would be appropriate. Cool.

Well, I'll make a motion to move that Kaia Marinfeld should be the chair of our planning and zoning commission because she does such a great job. Thank you. Second that. Okay, we have a motion from Jill and a second from Shaye. I will forever be in this this spinning whirlpool. Spinning whirlpool. It's fine. You're gonna have to self-sabotage a little. I told you I will tell you guys when I'm going to quit. Just give us a heads up. Yep. Um so then do we vote? I

So there is a motion. There is a second. Um so yes, all those in favor This feels so weird. All those in of uh me Kai Greenald remaining as chair say I I I I will I will recuse myself from that vote. So motion passes uh three uh with one recusal. Cool. Congratulations. Congratulations, Ka. Uh okay, vice chair, what do you all think? Um, I definitely have. I think Jill has done a fabulous job. Jill has stepped up um to run the meetings a couple times.

I don't have to do it very often. So, because you're not good at your job, I think I know there might be some life changes coming for some planning commission members who might always might also do a great job at this. Um, so I think with that in mind and with the uh freshness of Shaylee and Steve, I would maybe move that Jill remain as vice chair um of planning commission for now. I'll second that. Oh, Shaylee beat you to it, Carolyn. Sorry. Dang it.

Okay. Uh, a motion for Jill to be vice chair and a second from Shaye. Uh, all in favor of that say I. I. I. I. I. I don't want to really vote for myself either. Okay. That's kind of weird. All right. So, motion passes three uh with one recusal from Jill, uh, Carolyn, Shaye, and myself in favor. Thank you. Okay, now we're official. Yay. Four months late. All right. It's all good. Thanks, Johanna, for catching that one. Okay, we have a discussion, but I will also flag that it is 8:15 and I don't want to punt more, but maybe we keep it brief. Uh, this is a discussion item.

Back to our land use code update discussion item 6.1.

My bathroom break. I'm sorry. Gosh, you guys haven't had enough already with all of our language discussions already tonight, right? I'm pretty exhausted. Johanna's been so so patient though. I would skip it, but I'm so pumped. I love how I love how excited she gets on these. You've been at a conference all day, too. You're glutton for punishment.

Can't get enough. Um, so, um, I'm going to just introduce some things and then we can start our discussion back in earnest at our next meeting. Um, so I think I said this in our uh, email. Um but we have to pick up around the bottom half of uh commercial to keep doing our uh sorting of all the lists of uses into bigger buckets. Um and then we still have to work through industrial um public and accessory. Um which I think we can move smoothly. Um, but you may have also noticed that I've added um very draft definitions um populating in for all the things that we've done. And then I I got a little carried away and I've also um gone and done some that we haven't uh sorted uh yet. So, and I've added some labels for a deeper understanding. So only the big bucket. I've I've made an even huger bucket,

believe it or not. So our huge buckets would be residential.

Our medium huge bucket would be household living or group living. And then our big buckets would be mobile home, recreational vehicle park, assisted living center. And it is it's a little hard to show you all. Um, but if that if the bigger and huge buckets aren't um I don't know if you need more of a visual. Is my is has it changed to the Grand County now or no?

Yes, it has.

Okay, great. Um, so this would be our huge, medium, huge, big buckets. Um, Grand County happens to do this cuz it's a um it's a best practice. This is what we see in a lot of communities now. So, I'm not only taking it uh from Grand County. And now that I'm looking, it's pretty suspiciously similar, but I swear Um, I'm going from uh a lot of different sources. Um, and so in my definitions, um, before our next meeting, I would love comments, questions. I have an example of what would be a good conversation starter. Um right now the definition for two household dwelling says a building with two dwelling units located in a single lot designed or arranged to be occupied by two households living independently. And then um as a curious mind I might say what is independently? Do we need to put that in do we need to expand upon that within this definition or do we think we get it? Um so kind of with every single definition we need to go through with that um fine tooth comb. Um, this one's definitely going to take a little bit more meetings, more conversation than our um, sorting uses into buckets. Um, but I think it'll be worthwhile because their definitions are the base of all the use work that we're going to be doing. Um,

and then I have also added the column anticipated use parameters. And that's kind of just a a brain dump category where if I'm concerned that I'm I'm not getting a strong enough definition of live, work, dwelling. Um, and I'm my mind is telling me to put in live, work, dwelling that it is set back 10 ft. Then I can go to this column and I can write what's coming up in my mind as we're discussing just notes so that when we get to that portion of actually uh fine-tuning use parameters um we have already looked so in depth at all of these uses um that maybe we have a list to jump off of. Yes, Corey.

Thank you. That is an exceptional way to tee us off. I think I think for one that the prompt of independently is a great way to think about this is that when when there's maybe a phrasing or language because that's really what we're building this out of that those are the bricks in which we're building this when in default through Utah the state of Utah and its code and lema is it needs to be the plain language or or common understanding of that word now there will be words that you're like yeah we all know what word X might mean it's it's commonly understood it's not not debatable nor is it a contextual pivot point but there's some words that independently well one could argue well it's not independent therefore it changes the entire definition and unravels it so we'll have to think about well no I think we we're safe with that there's there's no footholds for interpret interpretation um a a current example we're looking at this is for vendor code is that it is two food trucks in a designated area. Well, designated area is not defined. So, could you piece that apart? And really, so we'll have to be careful with that. So, what a beautiful prompt. Thank you. The second is with these use parameters. That could be an idea of also how we're going to break this into different zoning districts. A particular use might be totally acceptable in two different zones, but one zone might acquire different or additional use parameters because of its sensitivities in that area that it may not need in another. So that becomes a distinguishing point where maybe it's it's not a totally separate use, but it is a use that in this area could have additional use parameters. So this way of breaking it down is not only sophisticated in the way we need, but it creates the opportunities um for folks while ensuring we're not we're not allowing things we we don't want and not and not allowing things we do want which

has been our current downfall in the code. So thank you Joanna really well done prompts. Okay. So, I will uh email out a reminder and then we can start fresh next meeting. Looking forward to it. That sounds great. Thank you so much, Joanna. I know. I hate that that always the end and then we have very little energy for

we'll get there and things are proceeding in the meantime. So, thank you for you're doing a great job. Great job. Um, I was just going to make a comment. Sometimes like when I'm at work in the education world, I forget that I'm talking in education language and then nobody knows what I'm saying. And so, one thing that we always remind each other is that if you know, you want to write things to parents as if uh at an eighth grade reading level. So that's something I that I always remember is if an eighth grader cannot understand what I'm reading or like these definitions that's just what came to my mind then you know you have to be clear and to get that point across. So when you're reading it going, would an eighth grader, a middle school kid be able to understand this language? Because a lot of our public does not

does not have an education or able to read beyond 8th grade reading level. And that's true not just here, but in a lot of locations. So that's just I don't know little idea. Yeah. So awesome. All right. Uh future agenda items other than the code update.

Yes. Code code update. Um I sent you all a email about um the bylaws. Uh we have some new state requirements. So we'll be updating our bylaws. Um, and but this opens it up to anything that what we currently do doesn't align with what's written. This would be the time to update. If anybody has any innovations, um, let me know. I'll run them by our attorney and we can see um about updating the bylaws. Um, I'll be sending out a redlinined copy of the bylaws with the state requirements. Um, and that's kind of a kind of a big one. We got some more requirements for you all training wise. Um,

so, but it'll be fun learning. We're all lifelong learners. Um, it'll be We're all notoriously not overextended people. I know. So, be really easy. None of us are busy. Nope. Nope. We say yes to things. Johanna, you said, I think, didn't you say in your email that you needed feedback for the bylaws by the 16th? So, that's before the next meeting.

Yeah. Um if we're going to vote on anything then um then we'd want to run anything by our attorney. But if we want to just use the next meeting as a discussion and not plan to uh pass anything then I I can extend that deadline for sure. I think it might make sense for folks to maybe email Johanna any suggestions or flags you have just individually, but we shouldn't be like having any discussion about it outside of the meeting.

Um, so maybe it would make sense, Johanna, to have next week be a discussion to put together something to then vote on at the following meeting. Wonderful. um probably makes the most sense if we think that there's going to be a lot. If you don't receive anything, then just propose what you're going to propose and we can vote on it. Um but oh, um also I have a Oh, uh I have a housing task force update that I'll be giving. Cool. Nice.

Along with that, many updates. So, yeah, as Johanna and I are both at the APA Utah chapter spring conference. Um, our representation is really excellent. Uh, Alexi is here as well. We've

we're have two we're uh have two speaking sessions, which is quite an accomplishment given the number of presentations. So, um it's been a really great conference. But uh tomorrow there's going to be a large legislative update on behalf of APA Utah. Um Johan and I, we've already uh observed the Utah Land Use Institute and their legislative update. So at the close of this session, we should be able to provide here are the entities that have provided updates and can convey that to you also is here's the general updates. In short, uh we'll do our best to condense those. There were there were many um but I think it'd be appropriate to also along with the bylaws which are specific to your uh your improvements there's there's been broad land use updates in the state this past session.

Cool. More legislative updates. All right. Think we've reached the giggling point. Yeah, we have. I started the giggling point. I don't know what you're talking about. Um, all right. All said real quick before you adjourn, Ka, if I may.

Um, I Ka kind of alluded before to some life changes for a planning commission member, which is me. And, uh, just wanted to share the sad happy news with everyone that I'm going to be retiring from the planning commission this summer. Um, a couple people know that my partner got a job in Durango and so I've been splitting time between Moab and Durango, but um, we're going to be having a baby this summer, so we should probably live together. So, uh, I'm going to be relocating to Durango. Hopefully not forever, but congrats. That's awesome. That's great.

Good and bad. Cool. I can say things now about it. It's officially a matter of the public record now, Carolyn. So, it's pretty official. It's very official. But, um, yeah, because of that, I think, um, Johanna mentioned they're going to start the search um, pretty soon because we know it can take a while to find a replacement. So, feel free to start recruiting people that you think might be a good fit. Again, I know we just did this, but It happened. Just shaking shaking the bushes out for planning commissioners. All right.

Um well, huge major congrats, Carol. We're super excited. We're excited for you. Speaking from recent experience, it's pretty cool. Um and if you're back to Moab, you can definitely still be on the planning commission and have a small child. I will attest to that. Yep. My one evening activity, you guys. uh away from home. So, all right. Well, great. Uh yes, note that we will be searching for a new planning commissioner um to replace Caroline between now and when her kiddo is due. So, all right. Uh I will adjourn the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Thanks everybody. Really good meeting. Appreciate you all. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. Huge thank you to Kelsey who has done all of our tech tonight here in Chambers. Bye bye.