Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Sweet. That would be a good background, too. Just giant baby face. I should do that. I should do that. We're trying to like keep his face off of the internet, which is both smart, but also it's sad because I'm like, I want people to see my cute baby, but I should do that. That'd be hilarious.

Okay, we are streaming. All right, cool. Thank you, Johanna. Seamless Tech tonight. Nice job. Um, it's because I'm not there. Uh, okay. I will call to order this Thursday, May 14th, 2026 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6:05 p.m. Uh in attendance tonight, uh we have planning commissioners Jill Tatton, myself, Kai Marinfeld, Shaylee Bryant, Carolyn Conant. We also have uh our city council leazison Miles Loftton. Um uh me, Carolyn, Shaye, and Miles are attending virtually this evening. And we have Jill in Chambers. And Jill, who else is there in Chambers with you?

We have Johanna Blanco and Corey Shortlift. Awesome. Nobody in the audience. Okay, great. Thanks, Jill. Uh, okay. Uh, first item of business is our minutes, approval of minutes from our April 23rd meeting, which was our last meeting. Um, if folks have had a chance to look those over, um, if we have any edits or corrections, we can hear those now. Otherwise, uh, can entertain a motion for approval. I'll move to approve the minutes from the April 23rd, 2026 regular meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission. All right, we have a motion from

Whoops. I'll go ahead and second that. And a second from Jill. Thank you. Um, all right. All in favor of approving our minutes from the April 23rd, 2026 meeting, please say I or raise your hand. I.

Okay. Uh minutes approved. 4. Thanks folks. Moving right along. Uh, next item of business, our first action item 3.1, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution 10-2026. A resolution conditionally approving a level two site plan for Stbridge Hotel for property located at 98 and 940 South Main Street, Moab, Utah 84532. Uh, Johanna Corey, take it away. I wanted to note that normally on the agenda we have uh citizens to be heard. Oh.

Um didn't make it on the agenda. Um not a required element, but uh and we don't have any online comments. Um and there's nobody in chambers. Sorry that I forgot um that item on the agenda.

All good. Thanks for noting that, Joanna. Okay. All right. Okay. We have the level two site plan for 940 and 936 South Main Street. Property owner is Lionbeck Holding LLC. Um we have two parcels which we will come back to. We are talking about the C4 zone. Um in the bottom right we can see the Grand County zoning lines. Um the red is highway commercial and the yellow is rural residential. Um the use of this project is existing overnight accommodations and this hotel will have 126 units and 137 parking spaces. So in 2019, the property executed a pre-anexation agreement with the city to build overnight accommodations in the C4 zone and then in 2020 they were annexed. In 2022, um the applicants submitted a site plan application. Now after eight rounds of review, uh the development review team has forwarded on to planning commission for approval.

Here is the site plan. We've got our big hotel, a pool area in the middle, and then parking all around. Here is a rendering of what the outside of the building is going to look like and then an example floor plan from one of the levels. We have three stories on this building. Here is uh their landscaping plan. We can see that they have zone buffering around the area that is rural residential and then not around the areas that are bordering commercial. Okay. So, this plan meets all of the city code standards. Um, we do have a few conditions in the pre-annexation. agreement, a detailed solar plan um was required, but that will be de um dealt with during the building permit review process. Um they also have a fee in lie um as part of building overnight accommodations that needs to be paid. And then the two parcels are going to need to be consolidated into one. Okay, that is the end of my brief. If you have any questions for me or we have some of the applicant team online if you have questions for them as well.

I I am just surprised. I thought we had totally built out all of the vested overnight accommodations. Is this the last one? We have one more after this. That's wild. It's crazy that it's been six plus years. Yes. Yeah. They're, as we covered in the background, it's been a long process. Yeah. just I it's it's wild that they're still not we're not still not built out with what was vested when the

overnight accommodations overlay went into place. That's wild. Um cool. Uh I guess yeah, we can invite the applicant to um if they want to hop on if there's anything they'd like to add that would they think would be useful information um for planning commission or the public. um as well. I don't know if there one thing that I have um that I've noticed is that some places it says 938 and then in other places it says 936 like on a couple of the documents the um okay just clarifying which one is it absolutely check the ordinance.

Okay. and make sure that one the that one's correct.

Um, the ordinance is incorrect. Okay. Who else we got on? Yeah, the ordinance says 936. Do we have um the applicants in Johanna? You said yeah. Uh Erin James, if you'd like to take a moment

and uh for our applicants, if you u for us to see you in chambers, you'll have to uh turn your video on otherwise you won't u register and then obviously unmute to to speak. Hi, this is James Green. I'm with Set Engineering. I'm a civil engineer on the project. And I'm not sure of the other address. I know it's 940, but I can't remember right off the top of my head if it's 936 or 938. 938 would make more sense. Um, and I can check that for you, Joanna, if you'd like. But if you have any technical questions, that's what I'm here um here to do. I had a question that's um maybe just more kind of context than technical, but uh I was interested to see that there was that on-site renewables component of the pre-anexation agreement and was wondering if we could get a little bit more background on that element of the project.

I believe are you referring to the to the solar design. Yeah. Um yeah, I don't know all the details of that. That's in the electrical engineers court, but I know they've put together some conceptual plans to um you know to provide solar for the the project and that was just uh at the at the developers behest and not something that was sort of like a part of the the pre-annexation agreement from the city side of things. Johanna and Corey.

Yeah, I'm uh working to pull up the pre-anexation agreements so we can look at the exact language if you'd like. But uh in general, the pre-annexation says that they will um do their best to provide the best solar.

Yeah, if we Yeah, that would be actually a great exercise if we could pull um the pre-exation up with that. uh in my memory and it has been years since I remember reading it verbatim but is uh maximum feasible capacity something along those lines which is as we'll see with the pre-anaxation agreement a number of the provisions built into that are nonprescriptive meaning maximum feasibility is that doesn't that's a very challenging metric to diagnose whether we've complied with that or not. So through the early stages of this process, we've worked with um James, the original architect, and a number of other project teams to navigate what that works uh to achieve and what that means. So um particular towards the sew uh excuse me, the solar, we did have a solar consultants at one point provide testimony as to what that could mean for this site. So it's just off their analysis of maximum on-site renewable would basically mean rooftop in this case. So they'll do a rooftop analysis of how they can provide that. Again that's pretty historic memory to it. But but yeah, these would be nice to walk through um a couple of these elements.

Absolutely. So, we've got energy, which is our solar um project will utilize as much on-site renewable energy sources such as solar as is feasible and balance the electrical use provided via RECC's or renewable power purchase agreements. Um, project will employ hotelwide energy management systems for all guest rooms. project will utilize high performance interior envelope methods. Um, thermal envelope will meet or exceed federally approved energy modeling software standards. Electric motor vehicles charging stations will be made available. The project will employ day lighting for common areas and public spaces. Um

uh and was that clause included um was that a a recommendation or a requirement from the city? The so this pre-annexation agreement was adopted by council. So this is a provision that the city and the developers negotiated during the annexation process. So it is a standard but as we were kind of describing it's not really a prescriptive criteria standard. It's it's more of a aspirational element. So how how we navigate that

uh to be observed when and I think as long as these elements are acknowledged and incorporated in some way I think we found that to be legally defensible as they satisfied it. So we if we could point to any particular element of these, it should be able to be recognized somewhere in the design plan that it it's being responded to in some way. And for this one in particular, that will look like um once the detailed solar plan is received, kind of comparing that to the the expert testimonial recommendation that you mentioned, Corey.

That's that's correct. So, right now we have our architectural plan, which is not our final construction set drawing. So as we move into building permit process phase, Johanna's authorization as a planning coordinator would co- uh coordinate this or elements of this pre-annexation that would have to be observed only at that construction document level. So, it would be maybe potentially unreasonable for us to ask for all of these in a full full construction sense until we knew the planning commission was going to authorize the site plan for them to produce the construction documents of what the detail will be for that solar plan. Um this this I think could be also incorporated into the other energy elements for um what would be h how the I guess structural design satisfies thermal envelopes how the parking and circulation is going to satisfy uh charging elements. Um so yeah a number of these will be handled during those construction drawing reviews. Does that Does that make sense? Yeah. To say there's one more series of checks, I guess I can put it that way.

Yeah. Somewhat somewhat substantial checks.

Now I'm excited to see that component. Excuse me. I was just saying thanks for uh the good question Caroline and the explanation Johanna. Any other questions for our applicants while we have them here? Doesn't seem like it.

I can't think of any. Uh all right. Uh as usual, uh this is a um possible approval of a level two site plan. So we can conditionally approve the uh resolution with or without modifications. As usual, there's a recommended motion in the packet. Um noting that there are some conditions. Receipt of a detailed solar design installation plan. receipt of a Wahoo payment. Um parcels uh and then both the parcels should be consolidated through a boundary line adjustment. Um or we can uh deny the motion or continue it but give explanation for why we're doing so. I will try my hand at this motion. I move that the city of Moab planning commission conditionally approve planning resolution 10-2026, a planning resolution conditionally approving the level two site plan for Stbridge Hotel for property located at 938 and 940, possibly 936. We will clarify. South Main Street, Moab, Utah 84532, with the condition of approval that all comments shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Moab city planning director prior to building permit application approval, including receipt of a detailed solar design and installation plan, receipt of the Wahoo payment and parcels 01-0012-0039 and 01-0012-0040 shall be consolidated through a boundary line adjustment. All right, we have a motion from Shaylee and yes, it is 938 and 940 would be the numbers. Just noting that for the

record. Um, as well and that the uh planning resolution as written in the packet does include an incorrect street address. So, we should make sure to amend that um if we approve that motion. So, the motion is for 938 and 940. Um, so we have a recommended motion or excuse me, we have a motion on the table from Shaylee. Is there a second? I'll go ahead and second that. All right. A second from Jill. Uh any further discussion. Alrighty. Uh all those in favor of the motion on the table, please say I. I. I Jill D. I didn't catch you. Yep. Bye.

All right. Uh motion passes 40. Thanks everybody. Um thanks James. Thanks Aaron. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you.

That was easy. Uh, moving right along. Uh, action item 3.2, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 092026, a resolution amending the city of Moab Planning Commission bylaws to update section 3.4 attendance. Add section 3.5 removal from service. Add section 3.6 procedure for filling vacancies. add section 3.7 procedure to appoint a planning commissioner and update section 4.2 planning commissioner trainings. All right, staff. This is what we talked about last time and here we go. We're making it happen. Yes. Okay, we can go through the red line again or we can um I guess we'll we'll do that. Um okay. So the first change proposed is language about removal from service. The mayor or their de designign can remove a planning commissioner. Um, and then the first four

is it sorry, is it supposed to say or or of right there on that first sentence

or their designate? Um, and the first four reasons there are straight from state code. Um and then reason E is um the commission's creation for unexcused absences. Um section 3.6 procedure for filling vacancies. Um all three of these are required. It's required that we have a section Um, so procedure for filling vacancies. Um, the language that I've used is when a vacancy occurs, the city shall post the vacancy opening on the city website. Applicants may contact the mayor with their interest in joining the commission. Um section 3.7 procedure to appoint a planning commissioner. The mayor may appoint a planning commissioner at their full discretion given a vacancy has occurred. Okay. Any comments on our first three sections other than the of to over?

Look straight forward to me. Okie do. Uh that's not how the process goes though for appointing a planning commissioner. It's a recommendation of the mayor that's then approved by city council. We talked about this last time, I thought. Okay. Uh, we can if you'd like to propose language right now, we can do that or I can try again. Yeah, come back.

Corey, what do you think about language? Yeah, I'm I'd hate to not advance this, but I I would have to double check into how I might construct that. Um, and in fact, that it's kind of catching me off guard that that's the process. And I may have missed this last discussion of it being a council appointment. Uh, that was, you know, the the selection as the advisory capacity of the mayor as opposed to appointment. So, I'm kind of have may have to take a minute for me to give my advice.

Yeah. So how that at least my understanding is uh people write a letter of interest to the mayor. The mayor then selects someone that they uh recommend for appointment to the planning commission and then that's then sent basically it's like been on the consent agenda for council. Um, but it is technically like a council. I think and that's what my I think you're right. That's how it goes. In every context, we've usually said, "Oh, the mayor appoints." But every time I can recall it is, and I think you've used that terminology correctly. The mayor will select

a applicant and it's singular. It's not that the council has selection options. the mayor selects and then the council may reject with findings or whatever that might be. So that I think that process seems that that is how we've observed it. Yeah. Some mayoral selection with the council appointment. It's like but it's it's like a I think of it like similar to like judicial retention, right? Where it's like

it's like a yes or no thing. It's not a they're not appointing them in the first place. I think it's it's like a recommendation of the mayor at at his or her sole discretion to be I don't even know if approved is the right word. Confirmed. Yeah. Yeah. That's to be like confirmed by city council or something like that. I'm really sorry. I have to switch devices. Will you let me in and I'll switch devices? Absolutely. Maybe maybe if we want to table that. I can do a little bit of work.

Yeah. I'm sorry. Or not table it. Postpone the the action Okay. And I apologize. I didn't I I did not have a chance to look at the red line ahead of the meeting. I would have caught that. I'm I'm sorry. I didn't mean to spring this on you, Johanna. All good. We can move on to meetings and organization. Should we Oh, yeah. We can certainly discuss, but we should just not make a motion. Yeah. I think we should be able to make uh an action by the end of this meeting. It'll just we may move on to some other discussion or even other items and return to this. Great. So, an agenda modification maybe.

Okay, cool. Let's continue the discussion of the red line, Johanna, and then um we can uh have a motion to table this um to later in the meeting. Wonderful. Okay. Um citizen planner workshops has now become planning commissioner trainings are proposed.

Um one hour of annual training on general powers and duties. Um and then I added some language from the state code including the role of planning commissioner in administrative legislature let us legislative and quasi judicial functions and then three hours oh the same as last time this is meant to be read as well um this next section and three hours of annual training uh with all these uh examples Um, newly appointed planning commissioners may not participate in a public meeting as appointed um until they complete their annual training. Um, again, all this is supposed to be read um and is language pretty directly from state code. And this is to replace the old requirement of um one citizen planner workshop training uh per year. I'm confused about how this is going to be applied and newly appointed. Oh, sorry. Newly appointed. Got it. That's that's hard though. So, is that saying that if you're newly appointed, you have to complete three hours of or all four of your annual training hours before you even attend a meeting?

My my memory on this and this is from our strategic planning sessions this January hosted by Nathan is the answer is no. My understanding is within the calendar year you have to accomplish that. Um, so it kind of bec it becomes a weird pinch. I don't know how this is applicable to the new legislation versus open and public meetings act uh standards, which is what I'm referring to is within the calendar year of your your uh service, you would have to achieve it at some point. So you can be serving the entirety of the year and then can be called on your lack of uh certification at the end of the year. I don't know what that means or does. Mhm.

Um, so I would imagine it falls in the same practice. Wonderful. Yeah, I can I got that. But the the plain language as it's written right now seems to imply It's very unclear. A newly appointed planning commission member may not participate in a public meeting as an appointed member until the member completes the annual training. And prior to that, it says four hours of annual training required. That's Is that taken straight from the new legislation? I could not tell you. I thought so. We should check that sounds. Yeah, I mean honestly. Oh,

yeah. I'll have to double check. We should clarify that within our own rego. I think I think we can probably I don't know that we have to take the exact language. We can clarify. Is it the one hour of annual training on general powers and duties? Is it the three hours on annual? Yeah. Which annual training? I think it's very that's very unclear. Yeah. Okay. Well, we can press on. Is um Shaylee trying to get back in? Have you seen her yet?

I have not seen a popup. I can check. Oh.

Hello. Oh, there she is. There she is. Yay. Sorry. It's my son's first baseball game, so that's why I'm doing it. I have to do both. Sorry. Uh, all good. We were just pointing out there's some some inconsistencies and some confusing language um still in the trainings section of the new potential bylaws Shaye. So I think we're we have some more edits. Um let's Is there anything else Johanna in the new stuff? Yes. Um

while if while we're looking for that back towards the mayoral appointment um I think it would from my observation a quick check within the state code where I'm going to land on this as far as my recommendation would be I'm hope hopefully you guys are going to buy this is that it is a mayoral appointment confirmed by the city council and this has been used for adopted plans before as well where It's almost administrative at that point, but it is memorialized by council, albeit officially appointed by the mayor. So, so if you guys buy that, I think that covers both bases. Yeah, that sounds right to me. That was my understanding. It was like it wasn't a council

vote per se, but it was I think an opportunity maybe for council if there were issues to to bring those up in a public setting for the appointment, which I think is probably the spirit of that. Yep. Um

yeah, that could be disc and especially now under the additional new legislation we got about um well this is more for um the decommission of a commissioner for uh oh how do they phrase it? Um excessive disclosure issues or something like that. There was this could be brought up of hey this this appointment actually creates this deficiency because of the other things. Um, but anyway, yeah, the two words I would use is mayoral appointment and confirmed by council is how I'd structure those. Cool.

Okay. And then our last section is um revamped attendance section. Um, each commissioner shall be responsible for attending at least 75% of the regularly scheduled meetings within the calendar year. Should circumstances arise where the commissioner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, commissioner shall be responsible for notifying the planning department as soon as possible. Um, a maximum of two absences in a calendar year may be unexcused, meaning the planning department was not notified at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. Uh, commissioners who failed to attend 75% of the meetings or have more than three unexcused absences will be removed from the commission. I think my only question would be do we want it shall be removed or may be removed.

My two cents is I think at least from my very short tenure here uh it's not always easy to find people to serve on this board. So using the language may does give us a little bit of flexibility for extenduating circumstances. Yeah, I think I think I like may if that's allowed um by state st state statute if we have requirements. I'm not sure if this is one of those. Nope, it's silent on that. I think that'd be at your discretion. Yeah, I I mean Carolyn, Jill, how do you guys feel about that? I like the word may instead of shall. We use that a lot at school. May,

not shall. It makes a difference. Yes, it does. Your friendly neighborhood attorney. Yeah, I agree. It's nice to have the flexibility while still setting the expectation, I think. And so what that would do is essentially move it to a criteria of findings that if we were to ever utilize that, it would have to be um confirmed in some findings, right? say, "So, we are exercising this right through May, and here is why is to ensure we're not arbitrarily applying."

Yeah, I think I think I'm comfortable with that. I think I think the mayor probably would be comfortable with that. Um, so

yeah, I think I mean currently we're experiencing a good example of this case um where I'm going to have a lot of absences coming up. But if we're unable to fill both my seat and Steve's seat, then it would be seems like it would be worse to be sort of like not available to participate despite a large number of absences later than um than otherwise. Yes, I agree. So, yes, if we could get that changed to May, it sounds like Johanna.

Uh, anything else? got the

I was just curious about the the dates at the very top. There's maybe when they were last adopted or edited and then the proposed edits dates and um yeah, just wanting to make sure that that's clean when it's finalized with the proposed red lines. You have probably um change to last edited and then put the approval date on there. And I know we briefly talked about this at the last meeting and I'm not sure how much it matters to everyone, but there was that little discrepancy between how the roll call is described at the end of the bylaws and how we've been doing it where um it mentions the processes kind of each person announcing themsel rather than Kaia announcing all of us. He's so good at it though. I really like it.

She is good at it. And she can so fine with everyone announcing themselves. That's nice, too. And then we can train the the AI that the sun uses to uh take meeting notes to our voices better. I uh if if we want to jump back to the trainings language, I did locate the state section describing this requirement and my reading at the dis is that they are obligated to complete the section one in the in the

title which is the one hour annual training prior to being able to participate. the additional three as I'm reading it without it being specified could be completed throughout the calendar year. Um, which makes sense to me with how we would have to operate. Um, because one of the factors so it doesn't it doesn't outright say that it it's silent on when and how the subsection it calls it 6BI shall be shall be complete. It does say that if you go to a meeting every month of the year

as an appointed member, it can count as one of those three. So it would imply obviously you're participating. So you show up to all the meetings, you get one of the hours for free. Yeah. So that would to me by default imply yes, you can you can complete the additional three throughout the year, not prior to being able to participate, but the one hour does have to be complete before participation. Well, and that frankly is your OPMA training probably. I would think that yeah, that would be it.

Okay, that makes sense. As long as you've clarified, if we can clean that language up to say a newly appointed planning commission member may not participate in a public meeting as an appointed member until the member completes the 1hour annual training on general powers and duties or some sort of reference to the specific annual training we're talking about. That would be fantastic. Okay. No,

you may have to give me a second. Yeah, this is citing a section that is I know for a fact outdated as of this year. So, it's it's quoting LUMMA 109A302, which I know is not the location of the new standard. So, this is the standard as we would have observed it prior to this legislative session. So, if you'll give me give me a moment because I I also don't know when that goes into effect that it could be codified or not. I think

is there an issue with tableabling this until our next meeting for a vote? Because I feel like there's just enough sloppiness in things right now that I'd like to see maybe a cleaner version before we vote on it. Absolutely. That'd be great. Yeah. I'm almost certain that is the language, but let's do confirm. I'm actually yeah like that's confirm and then yes and even if

if that was the language are we required to have that exact language even if it's unclear like could we add a clarifying clause? Yeah. So if this is the only section we're kind of worried about. Uh but if it's not we can move forward. Yeah. I did find this. I did find it. It's 1020302 which is the real section as of 2025. Okay, we will get another

cool. I will move to table this item until our next meeting. Um just in the interest of having a little bit cleaner um of bylaws in front of us before we vote to approve them with the um edits and suggestions indicated during the discussion uh this evening. Is there a second? I'll second. I'll second. I think I heard Jill. I think Jill beat you slightly, Carolyn. Second every time. Jill. Yeah. A second from Jill. Uh, any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of tableabling um this item till our next meeting, please say I. I. I. I.

I. All right. Uh 4 item tabled. Thank you, Johanna and Corey. I know it's kind of wonky and weird, but I appreciate the little extra kind of things. So, I noticed the two of us will be absent for that next meeting. I could probably join via Zoom is a or do we not talk about the absences structure the one before uh additional I could maybe join by Zoom for a wee bit but it's graduation oh it is oh that happened last year I feel like this is one of those we end up just canceling this meeting pretty often

yeah because there will be two of the four of us gone yeah Monday this wasn't one of the ones that we preemptively changed the date of when we were approving the meeting schedule for the year, was it? I had mentioned that. Yeah, I remember you bringing it up, Jill. Yeah. So, we might want to look at that for the following year. Yeah, let's talk about this at the end of the meeting. Perfect. Sure. We're staying on agenda. Correct. Um but moving on uh to our discussion item for the evening which is 4.1 uh workshop to discuss amendments to the MOA municipal code section for vendors.

Okie do. Um I'm pumped.

I love it. Okay. So in your packet I have the uh current vendor code which all lives in the business license chapter. Um and we can see um we have the general operating standards for all vendors and it gets a little messy um because even in the general operating standards we have mention of number of parking spaces um and tents which we wouldn't see anywhere other than private property vendors. Um then we get down to specific operating standards where we have uh specific things for food vendors, our food trucks. Um and then we have specific things for private property vendors. We in this code rewrite would like to extract everything that has to do with land use and bring it home to um chapter 17 and leave everything that has to do with who needs to get a license in business license. Um, so yes, now I'll take us over to the draft vendor code. Okay, so up top we have what is going to remain uh part of what is going to remain in the chapter 55 uh the business

license. Um these are the um a definition that's going to remain and then general standards that were would be for all private property vendors um so that they're not repeated under each use parameter every single time. And then also what will stay in chapter 5 is going to be what triggers needing a business license. And uh let's see who else is going to stay. Uh street vendors, carts are also going to stay in chapter five because they don't have to do with land use. Um they're not on private property. They're on streets or sidewalks. Okay. So, as we get into what's going to be in chapter 17, we have all these new definitions. We've got Bender Court right now. Our definition, the only definition we have surrounding uh food trucks or vendors on private property is food truck park. Um, which has gotten in into a lot of trouble because it's not very well defined. So, we got these new ones. Vendor court is uh means a property where the primary use is to host one or more vendors which are not temporary private property vendors. Uh we've got food court vendor food court which is um a vendor court that has one or more food vendors. We are splitting up uh food vendors from other types of vendors. Um instead of saying

food truck court, which only applies to food, but you can have a mix. But if you have one food, you're trig triggered into food category. So, in other words, you can have somebody's selling stickers out of a booth and somebody's selling chinchillaas out of a booth and they are a vendor court. Or you can have somebody selling chinchillaas and somebody's selling burritos and that would be a food vendor court. Um, wait, are we eating? We're eating the chinchillaas. What's happening?

Oh, sorry. Bur chur ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch churros and burritos would churros and chinchillaas would be defender. Uhuh. But then um my imagining right now which I'd love your input in is if there's one food it changes the whole rest. So I I'll use a different example. Yes, yo-yos are being sold and separately burritos, but that whole use would be a food vendor court because there is one at least one food vendor. Yeah, that makes sense.

Okay, that while we're on that, just so that we're building this understanding, is everyone of the same same mind of why food would be kicking us into a different category and not conversely the other way? Yes. Okay. Okay. Then we'll leave it at that. Yeah. Makes sense to me.

Wonderful. Okay. Then we get down to things that'll be we'll revisit later. Um consumer operating hours, vendor court area. Um and then we define vendor as the same as Utah state code which is a food truck, a food court cart or enclosed mobile business. And then we define a private property vendor. Um it's pretty similar to what we have right now or it's exactly the same. Um something that I think we'll need to come to back to is uh whether we would like services in there as well. right now. Uh that's in the definition that we've been working off of a private property vendor, but we're wondering um where maybe we want to draw that line or if we want to take out services since vending brings to mind somebody selling you something that you're going to consume, not a service. But we'll we'll come back to that. I'd really like to get through the

I think vendor to me means any any wares for sale. Like if you go to betray my nerdiness here, if you go to a convention, the vendor hall has everything from like food to art and but on a on a weird turn like I'm a vendor at a lot of different Yeah. things and I I don't sell things like that. I feel alternative. Yeah. So I feel like vendor fits fits any of that.

Yeah, this is something I think at the end of this conversation because it is I do want to dig in deeper and we have some case studies not by name we'll talk about and why this can unravel um why the exclusion of services may make sense for us to consider but let's because it is bigger let's let's do come back to it. Great.

Okay. Uh then we have temporary private property vendor. Um for the person who would like less commitment. Um, this is a person uh engaged in business that's going to be on private property but is going to only operate oh they're going to sorry they're going to leave where they're operating every 12 hours and they can't come back for another 12 hours. So trying to keep the spirit of the true mobile food truck alive and then we're going to assume that the private property vendors are going to do what we've been seeing in our community. Set up shop, stay for a while. Um set up more aunta seating, lighting, decorations. Okay. So, we have we're going to get really into Matrixes. We might have to put on Matrix outfits or something. Um, so this, if we can read it, is uh you find your zone and then you can apply everything going across the rows. So, I'm in the C2 zone. How many how can I be a food vendor court? Absolutely. How many employee parking stalls do I need? One. How many parking spaces do I need per vendor court area? What the heck is a vendor court area? Let's go up. Uh vendor court area is a

polygon drawn around the vendor's occupied area including seating, supporting structures, decorations, tables, vending apparatus. So, uh, when a person wants to get, uh, when a property owner wants to have food trucks on their property, they will now come to the planning office, say, "I'd like to start a food vendor court." We will take them through the site plan process and we'll have them say how many food trucks, what the vending vendor court area is going to be, and we'll have them approve a site plan. Then as food vendors or vendors come in, um if they adjust in any way, we'll have that property owner come back and adjust their site plan if needed. Okay. So, one parking space uh for every 300 square feet of food court area. And then this next column, minimum area per vendor, is similar to how we calculate the density for housing. So, uh, in my memory, uh, I'll make one up. Uh, in the R3 zone, you need 5,000 square feet per house. Um, that doesn't mean that your house needs to take up 5,000 square feet. It's just a calculation. Okay. Um, we've got hours of limited operation.

What's limited operation? Let's move up. Okay. Limited operation means time period which non-n noiseise or other externality produ producing work can happen without serving customers daily. I've got a food truck making cinnamon buns. I got to make sure they're ready before the crowd comes. I can do my limited operation hours starting at 5:00 a.m. and going to midnight. Um, and then we have our hours of customer operation, which is just our noise ordinance hours. Um then we have numbers of vendors that would trigger standard buffering if the property happens to abut a residential zone. So in the C2 zone, it would take uh over four vendors to have the property owner have to put up a six-foot fence and uh some trees. number of vendors that put up uh that trigger a six-foot vent fence if abuing in our residential zone. That would be only two food trucks till you you just have to put up a fence. You don't have to respect the landscaping or the width of the normal buffering. Okay, so that's my example. Um things are pretty similar down at the vendor court

and then we have some additional use parameters. Most of it is C matrix. Um vendor court use parameters uh say they have to meet the minimum setbacks of the zone and they have to meet fire health and building regulations. vendor court gets a little bit more complicated. Um, setbacks of the zone, C matrix, fire health, building, and then we give a little taste of what they can expect from health and building as far as infrastructure for lots of food trucks. Um, and then we have some sentences on outdoor dining, outdoor cooking, and other accessories that you might find at a food vendor court. Um, okay. Um and then temporary private property, remember that's the low um effort, lower effort, I'll say um that has static requirements. They're not going to see matrix. They just you always have to have 2,000 square feet for one private property vendor. you can't have more than one private property temporary vendor. Um, and then similarly to what we have going on now, you need to have a restroom and one parking space. And then um this is something that I would also love your feedback on. Well, everything I

would love your feedback on, but especially um if a temporary private property vendor is found to overstay the limit, the private property owner must report to this city of Moab planning department to get a private property vendor approval. So, I see that your tenant isn't respecting our rules. looks like maybe you want the permanent use instead of the temporary accessory use. Um and then similarly um to the food vendor court, we've got some additional rules for temporary food vendors. Okay, that was a lot. Thank you guys for sitting through that. Do we have any general how does this work questions before we get into some specific questions?

Oh my goodness. While you're thinking about those things you want to say. I feel like I'm drinking from a fire hose a little. So

uh sorry Shay, what was that? Oh okay. Uh so um from a larger perspective in which I'll try to contribute from the impetus to why we want to move this forward. Um the two well I have more or less three statements and then kind of a prompt into I think where we're going to go next is looking for recommendations from the commission is one one of the reasons we're we're looking at this is to move away from arbitrary regulation thresholds within the within the code which is something we were practicing this exercise for vendor code for other sections of code anyway as a part of our larger rewrite and instead moving towards a ratiobased regulation format. So that's really again matrix

matrix matrix is here

um in a effort to more specifically satisfy the essential nexus between impacts and mitigation regulation. So this is not this is not new um but it is I think a very much best practice of land use and land use regulation. This is to move away from what I've so affectionately called the HOA effect of cities of where you're overly regulating ownorous elements that are arbitrary based off of really no findings. And so what what I mean by essential nexus is that we are not asking through regulation for mitigation that is not equal to the impacts or burdens of that property. So if we believe a use is characteristic of a zone and should be permitted, we don't want to regulate that into oblivion. We just need to say, oh, it's appropriate in the zone and we just need to offset whatever those impacts are. So that's what we're doing in in the entirety of the code. And this is a beautiful example of how we're hoping to approach that with the land use code update. That being said, many users are calling for this improvement of this particular section in advance of our comprehensive rewrite. So that's why you're seeing it selectively drawn out, but it is actually a really good preview of how we're probably going to be see seeing a lot of the the new code coming through. Um my request and I think is our request, but mine in particular for the commission tonight is to identify and confirm the essential nexus relationship of regulations to the to the impacts that they are mitigating. So, I'll kind of slow that down and say as we're looking at the matrix here, we've identified that location, size, hours, these are all areas of mitigation that the plan the planning staff would like to see regulated because they are areas of impact, but it is up to the commission to identify are those hours

of operation, do they make sense for you as representatives of the community? Do those square footages seem to correlate with how you envision those those zones working? So these are we could probably him and haw but these lack of a better term we're going to have to have some lines drawn in the sand as minimums and maximums and at the end of the day they're mostly going to be arbitrary off of our best ability to be um correct but they they are just f found by our you know we're trying to tie it to something

uh defensible but at the end of the day it has to also kind of make sense. Um so one example you know I I provided those um and these are kind of in some way operational sides of the code um and we've teeded this up um I think I maybe don't have to say this um next section but the the aim here is that wherever we land with this as commission what the what these ratios include in the specific um regulation pieces that fill the matrix. My my ask of you is as we're looking into this and I think this is a really you're a very responsible group with this is that we're building it in a reasonable and effective manner kind of like based what I've said that translates to us as staff as defensibility. We're not we have the right to make people do whatever we as a community approve i.e. council adopting, but we want it to be at its heart very defensible because then we get into a feasibility challenge with the state if it it's too outrageous. Um, so an example of that is when we were looking at temporary um temporary vendor temporary private property vendors,

the minimum threshold will be 2,000 square feet of area for that use. Thinking about is that space required? Is it could it be less? Does it need to be more? That's a really good maybe tip into this because right now we have, you know, the minimum area available per vendor. This is being produced off of what we have is basically the food truck park as a as a really good founding. How is that working? Is that space around each polygon making sense? Um, so that's maybe one we we don't have to toy with too much, but it is one we want to think about. Um, but ours, operations, zones, everything else. So that's I think my big contribution to this this review. Thank you.

Thank you. That was great. Little quick question. Yeah. How does how does our how does this code compare to other city codes around the different areas? I did not catch I think I was I was having a hard time too. Something about maybe one more time, Shaylee. I'm sorry. Sorry. Can is that better a little? Yeah. Okay. Uh just how does it compare to other cities with similar codes? Like how? Wonderful question.

So I did a lot of digging and most communities don't really contemplate this either. Um they only have code for uh food trucks being on the street. Um, I did find a few where they only have I say a few, I found one, that they only have the what we call temporary food, private property food vendors where you're expected to leave and come back each day and the the property is entitled to have six spots. They went through a site plan where there's six spots and then the vendors come and go as they please.

Like a first come, first- serve kind of thing. Yes. Okay. And they're they only have the vendors themselves only have a street vendor license because they don't know that most of the time they're on the street unless they're lucky to get a spot that day. Okay.

At this area. Um, and then other places that um, Corey's told me about where they do have uh, vendors parking and staying for a long time. I was unable to find the code that enabled them to do that. So, it may or may not be actually allowed. Um, I wasn't able to find any other communities that have something like we're seeing organically pop up in our community.

Yeah, that I just to that comment, I had done some research a year ago maybe into this effect and I was trying to study some of the communities. I actually was watching a a Food Network type show

and it was highlighting um in Pacific the Pacific Northwest some of these um they were kind of pop up but it it was basically I think that was the nature of it and especially was during COVID. It was actually a reaction to um health restrictions as they opened up food trucks as this option which we did as well. Parklets, everything else that we've done, but they essentially allowed in in a deregulated way all these courts to manifest and then just they remained. So I I think that Johan's findings are correct that they're they're just we're kind of uh novel in the way we're trying to approach this a bit. Can you talk about some examples maybe of how this would work in practice um for us? Like what would this look like if this section of the code is utilized in this sort of area?

Yeah, absolutely. So, I don't think that you would see very many of these site plans um because they may come in under 8,000 square feet. Um so a private property would come to the planning office um or more likely a vendor would come to the planning office say I want to put a food truck on this piece of property. We would say get the private property uh owner to come to us and then we talk with the property owner and say would you like food trucks? uh would you like to have the right to put food trucks on your property? Let's go through a site plan. Um we'd have them draw it up. It would um probably be a level two. Maybe if they got a few a chunk of food trucks, it would tip into a level two site plan where you guys may see it. Um, and then we go through a round of DRT with their plans for however many trucks they presume that they will want. And then they'll draw their uh polygons around where they presume that the uh vendors are going to operate or put their chairs and tables. Um and then they will get a maybe get a business license for holding the vendors. Um and then each vendor would be able to get their private property uh vendor license and park.

Then if the vendor at any point puts out a lot of tables and chairs and goes over the uh originally approved site plan, then we'll talk back to the uh property owner and say, "Looks like it you need to amend your site plan." Um and then we'd go through that process with them. Was that what you were looking for that? Yeah, if I can before we get questions, I think I would like to hear feedback on this. uh and I'm getting more again back to kind of the philosophy of of this approach is what what we were seeing is we kind of had this licensing mechanism where we had private property vendors that we were engaging the vendors with all these land use categories that they don't own the land in which we are talking about. So we inherently created this this dynamic where the vendor was trying to get a license but through that there were all these improvements to a property and it was very cumbersome or we have one food truck park and so we're trying to push for more people to really identify as a food truck park that would be the land itself is creating a primary use that then tenants could come in and and utilize just like our food truck park. So this the origins of where we started with this was that really these this food truck use as a private property vendor is an accessory to the the use that's happening. We're making the land owner an element of this or almost the primary element of this and this goes back to the way the state has for whatever reason taken particular interest with food trucks is they've created and this we'll get to when we get into service discussion why services may or may not or shouldn't be included is what that means is they've actually deregulated a lot of health and safety

regulations for food trucks to operate a commerce in a way that a restaurant must maintain. Um, an example that is food trucks don't have to comply with ADA standards, but a restaurant does. Yeah.

Using that so on and so forth. So, um, as we're seeing in Moab, food trucks are operating in a way that's really unique um, given just the the economic situation, the the constraint of brickandmortar options and everything else. So, this dynamic is is kind of unique. So this shift is moving away to making property owners more involved in the process. And then the tenants being the food truck, they go get their license, which can be they can get a license in Salt Lake and as long as they get that green tag in the food truck, they can go to anywhere in Utah and operate in the ride ofway. That doesn't mean they can operate in a private property without regulations, despite what some municipalities may think. Um, we still have that. We still have the authority to regulate anything happening on private property as a property land use. So that's what we're doing here is making the food trucks. You just go be a food truck. You just worry about you. You make good food. Don't worry about development. That's not your role. Property owner, you're raking in host money, rent. You need to be a part of this process and responsible for being a good host. meaning you're providing sewer, water, and facilities, bathrooms or parking, anything else that that host can come and plug into and leave with a little bit less um risk and dependability. So using that philosophy as this started kind of as an accessory use to the primary property, the food truck could come and go. It doesn't matter. The me I guess let me back up a little bit more. Food trucks right now have to go and get a particular private property authorization for any private property they want to go to. That food truck does. We're flipping that mentality. So a pro all the private property owners in Moab can get this use approved and then they can have food

trucks come and go as they wish and that vendor doesn't have to jump through any hoops to go sell there. They can just plug in and go. And so that will make the fluidity of food trucks much easier and better, which might encourage more food trucks to be more mobile, participate in special events, all those things while also giving better security. Um, as we're going through this process, and the original question was about site plans. I'm getting there. I'm sorry. Is what this looks like for the planning commission. So I think the way Johanna framed that is not inherently the way the code reads now, but it could be interesting as how we approach it is that any new use, which this would be because, and this is another kind of distinction, we're not really pursuing these as accessory uses anymore. We're going to be pursuing these as mixeduse properties. So you have you have a professional office building and you happen to have a little bit more space on your property. You don't now have an accessory use. You have a different use. you have a vendor court, a fullyfledged secondary use or or co-primary use of a vendor court. So the wearer code reads now any establishment of a new use does need a full site plan warranting planning commission approval I believe right and well we'll look into this so that was that off the top of my head that's my understanding however it does not make sense for us for developments or areas less than say 2,000 square feet to go through this process. They but they are establishing a new use. So we have to go through the site plan process as far as the administrative role of DRT and the record of decision and approvals and land use authorizations. But maybe we will design this in a way that this type of use in particular because it's not necessarily structural by nature only comes to planning commission when it is a food truck park over 8,000 square feet like we saw with

our food truck park which did get a planning resolution through the planning commission. It's it's a big it's a big use. But as we as we narrow that down and we're no longer distinguishing it as accessory, it is its own use. we might say at a certain square footage threshold. It doesn't come to planning commission, but it does go to DRT. It does get a record decision from from Johanna. Um, so when it it'd be just like any other use, if it's coming to you, it'd be like it' just be like any other level two site plan. Um, does it meet the standards? Does it comply? Maybe there's some exception criteria that we evolve into the future that you may have a discretionary role in, but other than that, it's administrative approval. Nice. That makes sense. Well, and I think it Yeah. Yes. I won't I won't belabor the point. I think that makes sense. So, what is most helpful from us right now? Um Johanna and Corey as far as like input, feedback, questions. So um this is kind of a lot and we didn't do a walk through um and then give you the document so that you would have time to give feedback. So, um, one option would be now that we've walked through the whole thing and we've explained what would be helpful is input on all these squares in the matrix. Um, because I I did my darnest, but four is more or less arbitrary. Um, that would be really helpful. uh noodling on whether services um should be in the definitions of all

these different types of vendors would be extremely helpful. Can you explain why you think it should be a little narrower? there was some illusion to like there have been issues in the past or

yeah Johanna's plugging in so I'll take the opportunity to put my piece on. So I I think uh as Jo saying I think how we're filling the matrix out that would be most beneficial I think to us is is four appropriate in that zone before they require buffering. Those types of things you know when you get a uh scope and scale impression from some of these numbers does it sound reasonable and defensible? That's that's number one. Mhm.

Getting on to the second group which is kind of should services because as you said in my mind when we when we speak through these using language as law um understanding when we say a vendor that historically and by definition has a certain context yet you can draft it to mean whatever you want it to mean. In this instance, I believe vending as it was almost described verbatim by Kaya is the sale of food goods or wares in our code that also includes services which is can you really vend services? Well, I think Shaylee had a good point which Sherry's gone. Oh, oh no, she

Oh, she's here. Oh, the camera off. Sorry, Shaye. Shay's here. Um,

that when you think Yeah. Do you think maybe there is somebody that is you're you're vending you're you're giving them a piece of paper that is indicative of something bigger an experience per se maybe you're still providing something to them when I say services in this context I'm meaning you're providing services at that site which coincide with some other areas of our code like salons tattoos yeah massage etc etc where there's actually um services there's there's operations on site with a client. This is the territory I begin to get uncomfortable given the deregulations of the state that we are going to define vendors the way the state has which is basically saying we are reducing our health and safety standards because we believe these things are food trucks that are running all over the place

and there's the owner operator typically at their own dismay living in a hot box. What we can see with services is that you may have employees that all of a sudden are now suffering substandard conditions with limited to no bathroom,

no ADA access, and a whole series of other things that I don't think we're I'm at this point seeing the need or willingness to compromise. You need to provide these things at standard. Um, if a client in particular, like if your employee is going to work in those conditions, you kind of have some some and that's the same thing for patronage, I guess, is to say that they have their own free will to be like, I'm I'm going into this place. But the philosophical point here is that and I I use this term of kind of like old world. If we were to go back say into European standards of practice, there may be a merkantile above something that is only accessed through a spiral staircase that you have good u mobile ability may be able to access and that's just the way the world works. The way our system and standards adopted through the state and everywhere else is that patron patronage is typically implied that they believe it's gone through a certain amount of standard that it is safe and accessible to them at what is our universal ability. So, if they you're say there's a a vending apparatus, let's call it some sort of aluminum tin camper for example, and they're inviting you as a client into that said camper as a vending apparatus to provide services. Who knows? They aren't going to have that same standard of safety in that apparatas because it's simply not built to an IBC code where our building official can ensure you're going to get not just access but adequate facilities and then anything of that could be off of discrimination that sorry you can't come in for the service because you don't fit through the door type of a thing. Um, so my fear in that is we can we can absolutely go down that route and the

part of me that is willing to entertain this is the fact that we are right on the doorstep behind a housing crisis is an economic viability crisis. We need to be flexible, dynamic and creative with our ability to create economic growth. This is a fabulous tool for that but it is immediately compromising health and safety. So we have to evaluate how comfortable are we with that dynamic. So now I'm pitching something to where I don't think you I have a point you can grab on to other than

services if we include it could include basically that what that's basically saying is you can turn anything into a vendor anything in our corporate officing whatever they can manipulate our code to turn anything into a vending space as basically a substandard moved on structure of a commercial business. So question Corey, I just I think I want to envision like things that you could I want to make sure there is a place in our code or will be a place in our code for things like for example like if there was like a mobile dog groomer um you know in like what would be a food truck but it's a dog groomer and they've got the tents and they take their K9 clients in or a mobile salon like you said or a something we do have which is like a mobile mechanic um and associated infrastructure in a vehicle.

Those are all things that I want there to be a place for. But I also realize that maybe those uses should not be allowed to occur where the heck ever, whenever all the time, if that makes sense. It absolutely does. the um whatever service vend I guess vending only really needs services would still need to um be the services that are applicable in the zone that they are in. Um, okay.

But yeah, we've been throwing around that idea and would love um your input of if we had have a no but list or an everything but list um would be very very helpful from your from you guys. Everything but tattooing or nothing god dog groomers. So sorry to interrupt. In complement to that though there is another licensing tool that we're also looking at that the two that you actually identified are the two that live here and this is we because we have stuff going on right now particularly those two

those have been in the ether of there there isn't a home for them so they've been both licensed as vendors and home occupations and they don't fit either. So, we're talking about expanding what is our mis miscellaneous merchant license to be which is typically like you're an HVAC company from Salt Lake. You get a license for Moab to do work here. So, that's not even a good landing spot. So, we were talking to the treasures office about a additional landing spot for mobile mechanics, mobile dog rumors. Basically, what you've nuanced is the scope of operation of service is intermittent to the client. they will come to you or go to a place where it is appropriate for them to operate like excuse me Johanna mentioned um that is not a vendor because again the way we're defining we're lumping everyone into this this other situation. So we have house cleaning services for example they're not a home occupation because there's no business occurring in the home yet they're not a vendor because they're not actually vending anything either. Um, so they've kind of been in this interim where basically their their service lives within their vehicle, but they're not producing the point of sale out of the vehicle. It is occurring in some other way. So maybe dog rumor, maybe that one's a kind of one where you could have a puppy puppy wash pad built out in a van or something where maybe that that kind of works. Um, but I think what you've nuanced is the scope of operation might put you into a different bucket. So while what why I believe what Johann's saying is like the all all of these but these um you know in including but not limited to and then exclusionary of those type of statements. So we did say that like we're constantly like pretty pretty not okay with tattoos coming out of the vendor apparatus. Everyone's gets their tattoos out of the back of a van in some other places. Let's not let's not do that here.

I get Um, and again this is all health safety things because that was even talked about for for salon type uses hair or nails. Yeah.

But given the health codes around that, it would create another exemption where I'm not super loving that. But if they have this other license, like Kai said, we need a landing spot. I agree. If we do this, we have to also create that landing spot for these other types of uses that still don't have a home. So it it it wouldn't be a part of this ordinance because this one's being called for more directly. We'd probably still just band-aid on for the moment these uses until we do the bigger rewrite where we are contemplating adding that licensing type. I'm so sorry for cutting Johanna. So, in a very roundabout way, I think a good option for the commission today would be to noodle on this until our next meeting. Um, since there's just been such a big volume and it gets pretty specific, what we're asking for, especially in the matrix, uh, requires maybe for you to talk to some constituents,

um, and get people's input on this. Um, I was really hoping for some people who I talk to people about food trucks every single day and I was really hoping that somebody would show up. Um, but if you have anybody in your life that has a food truck, get their opinion. Um, yeah, that would be my suggestion. We can definitely keep going if you all would like. Joanna, would you be able to send out a Oops. Go ahead, Caroline.

Um, would you be able to send out a like a Word doc version that we could make comments on more easily as a little bit of homework before the next meeting? Absolutely. Great. I was looking up other city. You're right. There's not a lot out there in the state of Utah. So, we will noodle. Noodle. It is wonderful.

Yeah, in general, I think this makes a lot of sense and it certainly sets up a more logical framework than the current vendor code. So, great job so far and uh yeah, looking forward to helping with the cleanup. I like the Matrix, by the way. Definitely. Yeah. For again maybe the two or three folks in the community watching, the the bottom line here is this is going to make food trucks

way more accessible on on way more properties. Um there was there's one property tenant in particular that's been really grappling with the nuance in the code and the limitations even though maybe the property could support it. It's the the the arbitrary constraints of the code are limiting them. Um so if anybody's listening like you're going to regulate us further often what I've seen is the more language inside the code is actually probably the more permissive you can actually get. So that's what I think we're seeing here. So we're putting a lot of a lot of regulation around this because we're trying to create more and more opportunity. We're trying to expand that what if category.

Um so it is if you're pro food truck, this is good. If you're anti-food truck, well come and chat with us

because again, you know that matrix that talks about zoning where it has to comply with the underly zone um meaning eating establishments would also be permitted in the zone for you to be there. So it's we're not putting food in zones where there is not already food, but how they operate, you know, we have commercial residential zones, we have neighborhood commercial zones. Maybe they're not the same character as our central commercial zone. So you're going to see those time hours of operation kind of come into effect there of maybe it's an allnight food truck would be awesome somewhere in the C3, but maybe not so much near to a neighborhood. Um, but maybe I don't know what's the commission's down for that. You can ride your scooter down the hill and go get an all night pizza in the neighborhood somewhere.

What I'm hearing is we need to go uh the official assignment is to go eat at the food truck park at various food trucks around town. It would be good research. I'm just saying. Um actually to a non-jokey effect, if you were to go do that, maybe ask the owners like, "Hey, how's this going? What's your problems? What are your problem? What's your P what is your patronage issue? Um what's your Yeah, maybe not so broad is what's your problems or your problems with operations? Maybe say that. Yeah. No, one of my one of my neighbors runs one of the the more long-standing popular food trucks in town, so I could check chat with her. So

cool. I do also app I appreciate the um the shift to more involvement and responsibility from the landlord as opposed to putting it all on the the business who is just renting space from the property owners. I think that approach is much more consistent with the way that the rest of the code works and also just makes more sense in general. Well, it's zoning versus licensing, you know, when that's our purview. where we don't do business licensing, we do the zoning, right? And it really creates a situation where the landlords have to be good landlords.

Yep. Well, awesome. Thanks for the discussion, everybody. Thanks for all the information, Corey and Johanna. We shall noodle uh future agenda items. And then I just want to flag that we had some discussion in between uh our items about attendance for the next meeting potentially. So I want to make sure we don't forget to talk about that.

Yes. Um last time I checked attendance uh spreadsheet I was still waiting on one more uh input but it looks like we may want to cancel the May uh 28th meeting. Um, what we remains to be seen is if we want to schedule a special meeting. Oh, you got your hand up. Oh, no. Me? Oh, what? There's like a little hand. Are you guys seeing that? Right above her name. Oh. Oh, yes. She has the hand. Is that your cursor?

Oh, it's somebody's cursor. Oh my god. my cursor. Sorry. Sorry. I'm like a little hand. Um I was like I do not have my hand up and I do not see a hand. So pardon. Um I have a landscaping exception. Um that may or may not uh want a special meeting in between now and when our June 11th

June 11th meeting is. Um, but I do not have currently a complete ready application for them. So, I'll have to uh let everyone know or we can plan on a special meeting um and then they'll probably be ready and if not we have bylaws and vendor code to discuss regardless. Thoughts? Uh maybe wait and see if we need to schedule a special meeting cuz I feel like like weirdly June 11th isn't that far away. But I think the next meeting and we run into this every year and it's not just Jill. It's it is like always the night of graduation and we like always cancel this meeting. So, I feel like maybe we should just schedule a regular meeting that is not the night of graduation for 2027. We can do it

at the beginning of the calendar year. Um, but yeah, I think certainly cancelling the next meeting and then yeah, maybe I mean something it's not pressing. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, a landscaping Well, I suppose if it's a landscaping special exception, often things can proceed ahead without that being all done and dusted. I know you can get a can I forget what the terminology is, Corey. Um, deferred submitt.

Yes, a deferred submitt. So, it's not like we're holding up somebody's building permit if if we don't get to it. It's for a site plan. Okay. Uh so they cannot do a deferred submitt. Okay. But they are only on their second round of site plan. Okay. So maybe let's let's see and and Johanna if it looks like by next week we would need to schedule something between now and June 11th. We just Yes. try to that via email. That sounds good. I'll let you know next week if I have a complete application by then. Cool. That sounds great. big fish.

And I'll just note that um I'm gonna be out of the country between next Thursday and um like the 8th of June. So probably wouldn't be able to make a special meeting if it was scheduled before that. And I also have conflicts for both of the regular meetings in June, but that's just a Thursday night thing. So, if there was the need to move around either of those meetings, if it was a different night of the week, I could probably make it. Good to know. And thanks. The spreadsheet is a great idea, Johanna. It's really nice to like have some advanced notice laid out so everybody can see.

Great. Awesome. Thank you guys. Uh, anything else tonight? All right. I'll adjourn this meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 7:44 PM. Thanks everyone. Thanks.