Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are live streaming. All right. Shaylee, can you hear us? Sweet. Okay. Johanna, would you mind hitting okay so I can actually see everybody? Thank you. All righty. I will call to order this Thursday, June 11th, 2026 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6.04 p.m. In attendance, we have Planning Commissioners Jill Tatton, myself, Kai Marienfeld, and Shaylee Holland this time. who is joining us remotely. We also have city staff, Johanna Blanco, Corey Shurtleff, and Kelsey Garcia, and some folks in the audience who are here for an item, an action item.

Okay.

Oh, great. Friends of Shaley's. Friends of Shaley's are here in the audience. The Pricketts are here, they said. So we will get to y'all when we get to the item. First item of business is citizens to be heard. I don't believe we received anything via email or the comment portal. And the folks who are here in the audience this evening are here for one of our agenda action items. So I will move on approval. Next item, item three, approval of minutes from our May 14th meeting, which was our last meeting. Anyone had a chance to look at those? Any corrections, clarifications? Otherwise, we can entertain a motion to approve.

I think they look great. They look good to me. So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Or no, well, did you have something to say, Shaylee?

No, I was going to second it. We were done talking.

Okay, let me finish. I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the May 14th, 2026 regular commission meeting. Okay, we have a motion from Jill.

Is there a second? I second it. A second from Shaley. There's no further discussion. All those in favor of approving our minutes from our May 14th meeting, say aye. Aye. Okay, motion passes 3-0. Moving right along, we have a public hearing this evening. This is item 4.1, Consideration and Possible Recommendation to City Council of City Ordinance 20-26-08, an ordinance of the City Council of Moab amending Moab Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.30, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. section 17.30.020 permitted uses and regulations to include medical clinic as a permitted use this is a public hearing so what we're going to do is i will first get the summary from staff about this then i will open the public hearing after that and we can have discussion if folks want to say something on the record for the public hearing We'll leave that open until we're done with this agenda item. So, staff, take it away.

Okie doke. This is the 250 South, 400 East Code Amendment today. We are in the C5 zone. Our applicant is Chrissy Applegate, and their proposed use is Medical Clinic. So a little background. Chrissy, on behalf of the property owner there, submitted a zoning code amendment application to add medical clinic to the permitted uses section of the C5 zone, specifically for the New Hope Pregnancy Center to expand their operations. So in the resolution, you can see the actual Redlined of the ordinance. No. Redline of the code. But this is an example. We're just adding group homes. No other amendments.

Why does it say six group homes and seven group homes?

That's typo. The red is supposed to be medical clinic.

Yep. Because on here it says medical clinic. Not on that one, I think.

Okay, this is a excerpt from the narrative. Later we can hear from our applicants, but they are a facility that operates as a nonprofit right now, and they're looking to expand their offerings to the community and need to change the use in order to do so. So these are the criteria that we're going to be looking at for approval of this code amendment. All these responses are listed in your packet. We can go over any of them if you have any questions. And then I have the definition of medical clinic as found in our definition section right now. Outpatient treatment is provided by physicians, dentists, or other medical personnel. And treatment requires a stay of less than 12 hours. And here are the C5 zone objectives and characteristics. When making your decision, you'll want to ensure that medical clinic falls within the objectives and characteristics of the zone. And that is it for my presentation.

Great. Thank you. All right. I will open the public hearing on item 4.1 at 6.10 p.m. Corey, anything to add? I did. I think from

the community development perspective outside of planning, but in coordination with our process for going through the land use update and the general plan, which have been relevant every time we're looking at tax amendments or rezones. I think the review on this and the analysis that we've come to is, It's my interpretation this was an unintentional omission of a particular use. As we look through our code, medical clinic pops up a number of times in other like zones. So in the drafting of this zone, it did not seem intentional that it was used. intentionally excluded. I think it was just no mission, which we've seen in other occasions. So going through the characteristics and purposes section, there's nothing that seems contradictory here, especially given the limited scale and scope of these parcels. I don't think there are additionally unintended consequences of permitting this type of a use, which is again, going to be scaled and appropriate for customary local services. So in our neighborhood commercial zone, this seems, again, from a larger staff perspective, appropriate. Even given that we're doing this bigger analysis, we kind of are on a tentative pause on making any big shifts, this one seems appropriate to advance. So I think from a staff recommendation, we're recommending a positive approach. approval on this to planning commission will likely make again positive recommendation council.

Great. Can you pull the zone map back up Johanna? Absolutely. Yeah, that's interesting because there are already what I would call medical clinics in the zone in the beer sheet building.

so yeah that was what my question was that was i think and with the applicants we worked through of sorry to jump in oh yeah uh if there was a way within the current existing structure of the code that we could move and advance their land use without having to go through this is there a way that this this actually could work it was our understanding given the affirmative response that we've received that this could be, and not just for these applicants, but for the zone, an appropriate change, it was worth fixing it not only for them, but also for the zone. And then again, it's something that's in existence and should be, I think, utilized in this particular area. It's appropriate.

I honestly don't really have Any questions or feedback? My biggest concern is consistency, of course, and we have denied some code amendments because we are in the process of a major code overhaul where it felt like it was too much and we wanted to have it be part of our sort of bigger picture analysis with the public. But I think this really, like you said, this is you're not actually substantially changing what you can and can't do in the zone. You're basically just making the text go with what's already happening. And you said, I think the potential for an unintended omission being high, I think that in and of itself lends itself to this being appropriate at this time, even though it is outside of that process of our larger code overhaul.

And this is something that for these applicants and any others, obviously probably not watching, but hopefully is we want when uses are coming through that are obviously beneficial to the community, but also in line with our current general plan to not have to feel limited or constrained that we're manipulating their scope to fit into a box. Let's let the box actually fit what they ought to be. So that was one of the considerations as well. We didn't want to, pass this office a professional office. And then when they have some of these aspects with the health department or the building department, we're into kind of these odd places. So that's, yeah, again, just wanting to go through the appropriate process for sure.

Yeah. Bailey, do you have any questions or comments, initial thoughts? We can call the applicants up too.

No, I agree with what you're saying. I know we have recently denied some things because of the major code overhaul, but especially when there's already existing businesses that fit this lends to me that we have probably made this exception before. So maybe we just update this and add it to the list.

Are you all the applicants? Yeah. Does anyone want to come up and add anything? I know there was a narrative that was in our packet that folks had. Just if there's anything you'd like to say or add, you're super welcome to. You don't have to, though.

What I put in there was pretty... Okay.

Perfect.

Okay, great.

So that was the applicant, Chrissy Applegate, just mentioning that everything that was in the packet in writing is probably what she would say. But thank you for coming anyways. Yeah, I don't have any questions. We still have not received any public comments with the public hearing being open. So I will close the public hearing at 6.16 p.m. And we can entertain a motion or have some additional discussion, planning commissioners. As usual, there is a recommended motion in the packet. It's positive motion mid page on the, in this summary.

I'll open that again. Oh, there it is. I closed it. So, all right. Okay. I'll go ahead and make a motion. I move that the City of Moab Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Moab City Council for City Ordinance 2026-11, An ordinance of the City Council of Moab amending Moab Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.30, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, Section 17.30.020, permitted uses and regulations to include medical clinic as a permitted use.

All right. We have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? I second it. Okay. A second from Shaley. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes 3-0. Congratulations. Thank you, guys. And good luck. Bye, guys. Have a good night. All right, moving along. We have our first solo action item, which is 5.1, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution 11-2026, a planning resolution approving the buffering and screening special exception request for property at 836 and 840 South Main Street, Moab, Utah, 84532. Ready when you guys are.

Okey-doke. Okay, we are looking at 836 and 840 South Main for a screening special exception. Our applicant tonight is Jeffrey Finn, and this is a 240-unit hotel colloquially known as Henry Shaw. They submitted this special exception application on May 5th. The site plan is currently going through DRT review. It'll be coming to you guys sometime in the future. And you might be saying, hotel? Moratorium. This has been vested since before the moratorium went into effect. This is their current landscaping plan. And we can see the hotel parking. And then this back area is going to be our focus. The bottom of our screen tonight. This is an abridged version of the applicant's summary. The zone buffer depth will be going from 10 feet up to 70 feet. They will put in all the required trees and shrubs. But due to the unique conditions of the site and the adjacent property grades, they're proposing a 10-foot retaining wall as separation. Yeah, the adjacent property is about 40 feet higher than theirs. So the retaining wall is what they're proposing instead of the fence required. So their Western boundary requires zone buffering because they are putting a residential zone and this is the C4 zone. So we can look at the zone boundary buffering column over here to see their requirements. And we see that they have a buffer depth requirement of 10, a screening requirement of 8 feet, and then their planting requirements as well. So they are proposing to comply with the depth. And the planting and then again 10 foot retaining wall and then a small non opaque fence on top of the retaining wall instead of that 10 foot fence or screening element. At this point, you might be saying 10-foot retaining wall, that sure sounds like 10-foot or 8-foot screening to me. So I've included our screening definition, which says the difference in elevation is the height of the screening element is measured from the higher side. So it does not, in fact, meet our screening definitions. And this is a nice rendering that they've provided for us, what that might look like on site. They've also provided some, a demonstration of those site conditions so that we might understand the elevation change between their property and the neighbors. Okay, so in your discussion, these are the considerations laid out for criteria for an exception to the screening requirements. Proximity to residential uses, sight lines, noise levels, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area. Okay, that is the end of my

presentation can you refresh our memory about the last time we were considering this in the comparison of the two i apologize i was going to go back and look and i did not have time yeah absolutely um last time they had a few um

few things that they were requesting a waiver on. And then I believe we ended up with no screen, but the depth and vegetation stayed the same or stayed up to the requirement. And then we had a planting a plethora of trees instead of screening, I believe, because they had a similar situation of difference in grade. Is that what you remember as well?

In reference to Red Rock Flats 1. Yeah. Or excuse me, 2.

Red Rock Flats 2. 2, the second go-round.

Yeah. Well, yeah, that might be worth trying to pull that in the findings. My recollection is that I think we conceded, and through this presentation, I heard kind of, and these are kind of mixed terms, depths versus heights. So again, the screening height, meaning height of the fence would have been eight feet, not 10. The depth being the distance of the buffering zone, as it were. Buffering is a horizontal component, screening is a vertical component. My memory in Red Rat Flats is that we, I believe, may have conceded horizontal depth of the buffer, and also, I think, conceded some height on the screening as well, that there was an opaque forefoot or something of that nature.

It was essentially that it was up against residences and we didn't want like the parking area, the car headlights to be going through.

Yeah. And so, yeah. So with that, given that I'm on the floor, even though there was some actual kind of grade, which is why they were requesting. Right. So we find ourselves that there was a section of that property that as it ran, there was a section of the property that was overlooking a lower residential property. And then as that hillside actually went back, the residential property began to rise up and above that property. So, and yeah, it looks like Johanna may have that resolution. But as I have the floor, maybe the only element, again, not from the planning perspective, and it looks like we have a representative on behalf of the applicants here. We have Benjamin Jones, I believe, is representing this group. Awesome. Thanks, man. Is it from the CDD side, contemplating additional requirements, not necessarily within the landscaping purview or zoning, is that we will also have from what is kind of an engineering slash building perspective, safety precautions when it comes to fences above retaining sections. So those can often double dip. So that is something that I believe a forefoot, which is what's being proposed, a forefoot non-opaque, I believe would qualify with some of these safety standards is basically a fall prevention. And fall preventions through engineering are based off of grade. So even if it's not a straightforward down vertical of a retaining wall, grades at a certain slope are required to have safety. fencing to prevent falls. So I would say that we just need to ensure whatever's accepted by the Planning Commission ought to align. The safety requirements will preempt any determination we make. So we can say, oh, we permit a two-foot fence. Well, in that case, they will have to now put two fences in, one that could be two foot and one that would have to be the minimum safety. So we just want to align that we might as well make it the right height. But I believe four is, from my memory from the building office and engineering, adequate. So now you're just kind of working off of what is the landscaping aesthetics. So I'm not making a dissenting recommendation here or anything it was just more to illuminate there's more than just aesthetics or glare or nuisance type special provisions that we're trying to mitigate but at the end of the day the whole the whole premise of screening buffering is to mitigate impacts so having that as the core justification behind your findings will be helpful for johanna but i think that's all i had

And I found the resolution for Red Rock Flats 2 and I was mistaken. We didn't waive the screening element. We just lowered it to four feet rather than six feet.

All right. Yeah, the applicant, if you'd like to say anything, any additional information or comparison, anything like that, we would love to hear it. Just introduce yourself briefly. That'd be great.

Elisa, this is on you. You're prepared and have the whole presentation. So it's, please go ahead.

All right. Thank you. Thank you everyone. And I think Johanna, I think that might've been you presenting, but I think you covered everything that was in our application. So thank you very much. And I don't think we have anything to add. Joshua, our architect, is also on the call if you have any questions regarding the retaining wall.

No, Johanna, I think you covered most of it. I think something that maybe wasn't super apparent from the rendering too is that there's an existing residential property just up the hill there that's not visible in the view. And I think part of the case we're trying to make is that visually, if we added that eight foot fence, that the residents would be well above it. So it's not necessarily screening anything looking down from the residents to the site. And Corey, to your point about mitigating vehicles and headlights and all that, vehicles would be well below this barrier requirement height. So I think there's not really any visual impacts from the vehicular side from our property to the adjacent residences.

Great. Thank you, Joshua.

Ben Jones, And one more thing to add i'm i'm Ben Jones I work with Jeff co developer on the project and. Ben Jones, So you were talking about the fence up there, so this is going to be a marriott autograph marriott and they're going to require us to put a four foot fence up there to keep people from falling off of that wall so. Ben Jones, we'll have to do it anyway, so, and I was we were already planning a four foot fence josh and all of us were looking at him yesterday actually so. So if you did say to put a fence up, we have to put a forefoot up. Right. Yeah, we do have a safety rail up there.

Corey, do you think this addresses kind of our issues from last time?

I think it does. I think, yeah, Ben's point about glare is that we're in the inverse scenario. The headlights are not overlooking. They're actually into the retaining wall section. Mm-hmm. The one thing that we're learning that we wouldn't really observe is the reality of this as we've gone through the property that's actually not far away from this going through our buffering system, which includes landscaping elements such as trees that can be on these sometimes challenging tiers. So it looks like to me, and this is where maybe the African group can help me, is we appear to have the parking section, the retaining wall, would go basically right on the property line and then the fence extending up and through the top of the retaining section mounted there. But all this landscaping that we're seeing on the screen is interior to the base grade, correct?

Oh. That is, go ahead.

That's correct. Okay. So this is almost, you know, from a technical perspective, sounds good. In practice, where we've had civil and architectural plans meet the road, where we have retaining walls, especially, not that this is an immense category of retaining wall, but 10 feet tall. Not crazy. Is we have to be certain that we can approve that. And I don't think we have a problem with that. But it should be known to the applicants that negotiating implementation and construction can be challenging and that sometimes overestimation is required. And you are now excavating into a neighboring property to meet your requirements. development envelopes. And that's become with adversarial neighbors, really challenging. Most of the time you've got a neighbor and you guys can get along and say, yeah, we just temporarily, we're going to excavate, you know, one to two feet into anchor, the retaining section, and then the fence itself will be right on the line. When we've had objecting neighbors, particularly to hotels, which in our community can be a thing, they're kind of obstinate regardless of common construction practices. So this is just a word towards moving to your GCs or whoever's going to take this plan forward. don't maybe paint yourself in the corner where there's no development envelope flexibility and you, you have to be on your neighbor's property because we've seen everything from easement negotiations to property acquisitions of two feet. We've seen, we've seen it all. So just, I guess I think I've made my point.

You guys get great, great advice. And we've actually been thinking about the same thing we're putting, we're changing some of the power lines to be underground, which is right through that same area. So yeah, we're doing some trading and hopefully gonna keep everybody happy around there. That's our plan right now. So yeah.

Cool. Great. That's all my questions. Shaylee, any questions, comments for the applicants?

No, I think you guys did really well at making the changes we were concerned about. So appreciate the effort.

Definitely. Yeah. All right. As usual, we can entertain a motion if anyone would like to make one.

I will try. I hope it's not too loud in the background.

No, you're good. We can't hear anything. We can't hear anything, actually. Oh, good.

I just was like, I don't want Jill to have to do all of these. It's all good. I move that the City of Moab Planning Commission approve Planning Resolution Number 09-2026, a resolution amending the City of Moab Planning Commission bylaws.

Oops.

That's the wrong one. Sorry. Hold on. I knew I pulled up the wrong one. All right. Okay, Jill might have to take this one. Oh, well, it's 5.2, right? 5.1. Okay, sorry. I move that the city of Moab Planning Commission approve Planning Resolution 11-2026, a planning resolution approving the following buffering and screening special exception class for property at 836 and 840 South Main Street, Moab, Utah, 84532, allowance of increased buffering distance and a combination of a retaining wall and non-opaque fence in place of the required eight-foot screening on the zone buffering boundary of this property. Sorry again.

Okay, we have a motion from Shaley. Is there a second?

I'll go ahead and second that.

All right, a second from Jill. If there's no further discussion, we can take a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you, folks. Motion passes 3-0. Have a great rest of your evening. Thank you so much for being so responsive and putting this together a second time.

Thank you. So accommodating and friendly.

Thank you. We try to be.

Yeah. We're excited about this place, so it's cool.

Well, thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you. Yep. Bye.

All right.

On to our next item, which is action item 5.2, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 09-2026, 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, and add section 3.7, procedure to appoint a planning commissioner. and update section 4.2, planning commissioner trainings. All right. Johanna, thanks for coming back with this.

Absolutely. So since the last time we talked, I have updated procedure to appoint planning commissioner, adding in that they are confirmed by city council.

Awesome.

I have amended the 4.2 to say a newly appointed planning commissioner member may not participate in a public meeting until they complete one hour of annual training on general powers and duties. And then the last change that was made since last time was procedures for electronic meetings saying that the planning commission chair or their designee, rather than the recorder, will take verbal roll call.

Great. Perfect. That looks great. Just reviewing everything here briefly.

Sorry, say that again, Johanna. You said that the chair or co-chair will take attendance instead of us saying our names?

It says the recorder currently, and the change is instead of the recorder will take a verbal roll call, it's the planning commission chair or their designee will take a roll call for attendance.

I know we were like talking about just having everyone say their own names.

Yeah, that works. That is a roll call. Okay, sounds good. Okay, I think that language works for the mayor recommendation and then city council confirmation as well. Thank you for making that change.

Absolutely.

And for clarifying that you don't have to do all of your training before you can join a meeting. We will truly never fill a vacancy again, if that's the case. So, happy to see that. And to be clear, that one hour of annual training is our Oploma training, probably. Okay. No big deal. Great. There is like one typo that I see and it's just a missing space. So maybe just noting to go through and flag. Just do a little copy edit real quick, which is not substantive. In 3.5 removal from service, there should be a space after part 12. Oh, yeah. There you go. Okay. Thank you. There may be something else, but that one jumped out at me. Okay. Great. We had lots of discussion on this last time. I'm comfortable with where things stand. Right. We can entertain a motion if anyone wants to make it.

I'm scared now.

Ping-ponging here to Jill.

All right, I'll do it. I think I got it. I think I'm just 5.2. I move that the City of Moab Planning Commission approve Planning Resolution number 09-2026, 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 screenings.

I will go ahead and second that.

All right. We have a motion from Shaley, a second from Jill. There's no further discussion. We can take a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the table regarding action item 5.2, please say aye. aye aye aye all right motion passes three zero uh planning commission bylaws updated thank you johanna for your work on that um next um oh sorry yeah i got one thing that just caught my eye today um we're gonna have to do a quick code amendment right now we have in um

the municipal code language that says planning commission members must attend a minimum of 75% of all planning commission meetings. held during the course of a calendar year in order to remain a member of Planning Commission.

I don't think I knew that was in there.

I'll be bringing that to you guys soon. Just to come into conformance with our new bylaws.

Okay. I genuinely didn't know that was in there. I just found it. There's people that should have been removed on past Planning Commissions just by virtue of that. All right. Thank you. Good flag. Next, our discussion item for the evening. I do want to note that it's 6.45. We're doing great on time, but I do have a under-the-weather family members at home I would love to get home to as soon as possible. This is 6.1, a workshop to discuss amendments to the Moab Municipal Code section for vendors. This was sort of previewed last time for us, so we're ready for you.

Okay. Let me make that a bit. Somebody just told me a really fun computer or keyboard way to zoom in, but I cannot remember right now.

Okay. You press control and then scroll on your mouse up. Not working?

No, not today. Anyways, last meeting we went through some of the What I've got, I'll go through a really brief overview again. So this first chunk is what's going to remain in business license chapter five of the municipal code. And then Add to land use definitions is going to be added to our definitions section, some new uses, separating out vendor court, all the vendor things that have to do with land use so that we're less focused on policing vendors and more focused on getting people land use approvals for vendors to come aboard. Then we get down to a new ad process for gaining a vendor use onto your property. We are currently rewriting the triggers for site plans. So this will be amended to fit nicely into that. So we won't discuss that too much other than I'll note that we'll try to keep it at a pretty low threshold. so that we can make it widely available for anybody who'd like to get a vendor court or private property vendor use added to their property, as long as they're meeting our minimum requirements. So then we move on to our matrix, which is what I would really love your input on today. We go through the uses. And if a food vendor court is permitted or not, then we move on to employee parking stalls. Right now, that's just one parking stall, assuming that each food truck is going to hold not too many employees. Then we move on to the ratio of parking to vendor court area. Last time I think we went over this a little bit, that vendor court area is a polygon drawn around whatever seating or other apparatuses the vendor happens to be using. Um, then we get into minimum area per vendor. This is not the area of the vendor has to take up. It is, um, kind of like our housing density. You have to have at least, uh, 3000 square feet on your whole lot to have one vendor. Um, and then hours of operation, um, limited and consumer. And then, uh, vendor, amount of vendors that trigger standard buffering if abutting a residential zone, and then number of vendors that trigger a six-foot fence abutting a residential zone.

One quick thing. Did you mean to put 12 a.m.? Because p.m. would be noon.

Oh, yes. Okay.

Yeah, we, you know what, you're not allowed any afternoon activities. I mean, I get it.

Go home.

That is time y'all. It is hot.

It's serve yourself. Yeah.

Yeah, so if we want to start with one column and then go through the zones, that would be really helpful feedback for me. We can start with permitted. Are there any comments on the zones in which food vendor court, I have another matrix for just vendor court. So right now we're only thinking about a vendor court that has all food vendors or a food vendor court or a vendor court that has a mix of food and otherwise selling wares. So just keep that in mind. So any comments on the zones in which they're permitted?

Other than the 12 a.m. thing, yes.

Okay.

I would love if some food was open until 12 a.m. in this town. I will just say it's very limited.

I feel like McDonald's, right?

No, they're not even open that late anymore, I don't think. It's like Los G's or Bust, basically.

I mean, low seas is what people want at that time of night.

Just an aside, I hope this will facilitate more tasty food trucks staying open. In the wee hours. Yeah, so... Good point.

If that's something that we're interested in. So we have the two types of operation. Hours of limited operation, which means you can be preparing, you can be cleaning up, and then hours of consumer operation. That's when you can have a customer come up and serve. So if we want to dive into those times. I kind of just threw some out that I thought were reasonable, obviously not the most reasonable given that I said PM, but any comments on the base level or if they should be changed based on zone?

I honestly think later is fine, is better. I think the businesses are making a decision on their hours based on the finances and the economics of it. I don't think if we set it to 12 midnight for hours of consumer operation, that that means they'll be open that late necessarily. They'll still make their own decision. And maybe it's 10, maybe it's 9. Yeah.

well and it would at least it would it would give that option particularly for you know certain seasons um to vendors i also like the 7 a.m like limits you from like a coffee like a coffee breakfast like that wants to be open at six because that's the other issue we have nothing open before seven yep

So with that, as we're looking at this, I want us to identify that within the C3 and C5 and RC zones, I believe, yeah, also the industrial zone, there are no limits. 2 a.m. Go for it. Go nuts. The only limits that we're currently as staff looking at are those that would also be a mixed use of having residential or historically customarily residential properties immediately adjacent, which I can imagine. So I think in the narrative that we've all described, we're kind of picturing a commercial area more or less, but given that the C2, C1 for that matter, um, you could find yourself in a zone that has zero commercial. And then all of a sudden this comes up and there's a late night hangout. Those neighbors can feel that there's unreasonable hardship now. It's inappropriately, you know, Euclidean buffering and mitigation uses. So the Xs that we're seeing are those that were like go nuts. All, you know, those zones that are C1, C2, Got it. And C4. And even C4, I think, could be argued to be kind of into the X categories, the general commercial zone, possibly. But for sure, the C1, for sure, in my opinion, the C1, C2, and then possibly even the C5. I'm a little bit more pro, let's see C5 kind of become the locals category. oriented commercial so i'm a little bit more inclined to allow for the expansive use there but that is a historically residential yeah um use area so just i hope that frames because i think what i'm hearing you saying is already being observed there so um and this is a clarification for johanna is the way we're reading this matrix is that limited operation basically runs from 5 a.m. till 12 midnight. So there's layers. We're not going to stop limited operation, start consumer operation. They just run over the top of each other. Is that correct?

Yeah. I think that's appropriately correct.

Yeah, we have bakers. And this is that 5 a.m. We just threw spaghetti at the wall. We know bakers that are up at 3 a.m. I mean, there was a donut shop that he was up there at 1 a.m. to start his day. He also concluded by 8 or 7 a.m., like Sherry said. That breakfast is long gone by the time others were just kind of getting open. But again, we don't want to push disproportionate impact onto what are rightfully zoned adjacent properties either. So interesting little balance here.

Yeah, the C4 kind of interests me slash confuses me sure yeah because there's not a lot of residential in i mean there is a budding right it abuts a large chunk of the r2 it's coming up it's becoming our most dense residential zone yeah it's it's all of our multi-household so again this is i think there is you know our former commissioner steve looking at that block on north main street

Yeah, so C4 is kind of our southern corridor and a portion of our northern corridor. The RC is like the far northern corridor. Yeah, so that's where we see a lot of our multi-household being built right now. Which again, I think from a multi-household perspective, you're given that they have increased buffering that we just experienced. They have all these increased development standards you could because again that zone permits multi-housel but it also permits right next door warehousing all sorts of general commercial things so a food truck i don't think is disproportionate in that zone that would disrupt them more than any other type of use okay cool because that's like

Moab Springs and the Hyatt. The North Seaforth.

Yeah. I'd say our South Seaforth and our North Seaforth have characteristic differences.

Yeah. Definitely. Okay. That makes sense. With that in mind. I will say I get what Shaley is saying. I think it's I think the 7 a.m. is a little more onerous than the 10 p.m. Like on one end, I think maybe extending that to 6 a.m. for consumer operation makes sense, particularly if we're thinking about that. Like think about like a coffee cart. If one were to pop up in the North C4 area, which is highly like honestly there's that's like kind of the big dead zone for drive-through coffee in town at this point is the north end of town so so the dead zone you can't go more than two minutes to get your coffee guys we're getting there we're getting there the moss empire is helping um

I think you're exactly right.

Trace Moss.

So I think with these, again, these times, this was just, we were throwing something out. You might as well have X's in these spots. There should be a morning time and there should be an evening time. So looking at it that way, again, this is anecdotal that you guys are calling on your representation of the community that if you know a string of bakers that are like, I have to start at 3 a.m., that might be an appropriate time to say, okay, limited hours, start at 3. But to Shaylee's point, consumers, early consumers, maybe we bump that up as well.

I honestly think limited operation hours could just be excess for everything. Or things like this, unless it's in the R zones. Because We don't, we just don't know, you know, maybe something someone's making requires them to go in at 1am for an hour to prove something. let it go and then come back at five i mean and we can really lean on our um nuisance codes right and enforcement yeah exactly putting it yeah uh up front it feels like a little bit too too many pegs into a round hole kind of situation i i think i understand why we're doing this i think business hours like consumer business hours totally make sense to have some sort of you know requirements or restrictions but but as far as like when someone's able to like be in their cart with like the like the flap down just doing stuff i don't know that that really is like our purview to regulate unless it is a nuisance and then it's already covered yeah it's great

It's a very defensible way to approach that. I think that's a good way to move forward with council. I'm not saying we may move totally away from that when we get to council, because they're going to want security. This is new. They're going to be scared, and they're going to go to worst-case scenarios, which is also what we as staff are trying to also fortify against. But I think your point of, well, there's an arm of this regulation that we have. Sometimes the one-two punch is very helpful. Other times, just let it be.

yeah so the mobile dog groomer can't have their shih tzu screaming at 3 a.m right you know right yeah yeah i just think i think in this area we need to be super forward thinking of you know especially like we have shoulder season issues because it's hot not just because it's cold and so like know you get the hikers and the bikers who might get up when the sun comes up which is 4 30 and 5 and want to go get coffee and we're limiting our our vendors in that in that area on the morning side way more than i'm worried about okay yeah what i'm hearing is um i i think six six okay

And then what do we think about, I'm hearing that from you and Kaya. Shaley, do you think that six is a good jumping off point for hours of consumer operation?

I mean, I hate mornings. So understand I'm saying this not because I get up early, but I almost think that's still limiting it for summertime. But I just, I get why because of the areas it's in, but it's also like, I don't think you get rowdy people at 5 a.m. wanting coffee. You're getting people that are coming, eating. I don't know. I'd almost lean towards pushing it back even further to 5 a.m. I don't know that you're going to get a lot of people that do that, but I think it lends for some flexibility of people that want to walk and get coffee. There's a lot of people that love 5 a.m. I'm not one of them, but I think I would lean towards pushing it even further. on the morning side.

Okay. Those are the maverick people. Yeah, that's a maverick.

Crazy, crazy mavericks. Let's be honest.

I want to just make one comment that Johanna putting this matrix together, and this is how, this is a really good sampling of how we hope to, I think we've said this already, advance a lot of our land use code in the future. So this is framing a lot of how we'll will navigate use parameters and regulations of uses. But this is also to the benefit of into the future if we observe it's gotta be four. We set it at five and it's gotta be four. That is a very easy text amendment. So again, it'd be very surgical at that point. So we're hoping, and that was Michael's, when we launched into our larger land use update, that was always the priority is to move our code to something relatively static and less narrative, uh, matricy based for that very purpose. It's really clean, easy to understand, but also it's very easy to amend. Um, so don't feel, you know, you're concreted in for 20 years at 5.00 AM. It's like, you know, user use our best estimates, what we think is going to work, but then as it gets rolled out.

Yeah. Yeah. We're going for like footloose town. Yeah. Arbitrary rules. Yeah. question about parking stalls yes absolutely let's chat about those so maybe the reasoning behind this I'm trying to think of like real world examples I think with everything the idea of these being neighborhood adjacent walkable potentially portable but they were talking about the food vendor court right now so more than one or the ability to have more than one not just like taco truck pulled up on the sidewalk temporarily um yes um

If they're on the street, no parking, can't be on the sidewalk. Yeah. But yeah, absolutely. I can go down to the requirements for...

This would be like the food truck court, like how many parking, the on-site kind of weird gravel lot they have there would be based on how many vendors.

Yeah. Then if there's just one and you have your... a private property vendor pad.

That's what I'm trying to rebrand.

Vendor pad. Instead of your vendor, then it's just two parking spaces, one for a customer and one for whatever employees inside. And then these, the 300 number as our jumping off point, very open to suggestion, is... It's not even our restaurant parking calculations. It's more generous than that. Our restaurant parking calculation is one every 200 square feet. So this is what most businesses that aren't restaurants in Moab, their parking calculation that they have to pay. As we're looking at vendors really stepping out here, we want to encourage flexibility of people trying to start businesses, but we also don't want to penalize those who have saved up and got their brick and mortar and our institutions and our community because they've had to follow these parking rules. And that was a real barrier to them. And maybe they paid a fee in lieu. And then now vendors, we don't want to have it too low that we're having parking issues or too low that it seems unfair to our brick and mortars.

Mm hmm.

And I think with that idea, the only additional point I might make is that there's a minimum area you basically get gratis up to, in this case, 3,000, 2,000 square feet is bundled of here's your base level, which is, I think, a reasonable requirement given you're basically, again, we're moving away from this. We'll get there. But this temporary type option, this is a permanent property vendor. You already established use on a property at this point. As Johanna said, now you need to bear the burdens to mitigate your impacts. That's again, none of this is arbitrarily tied at its base. We do have to navigate some of these numbers, which can seem arbitrary because we are trying to do our best judgment. But that's the point, I think, is that with that number, so for example, in the C2, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, it'd be 3,300 square feet of commercial floor area. that somebody has that big of a polygon.

Okay, yeah.

They have three spaces at that point. Is that right? Or two?

Yeah, they got... Sorry, could you repeat that one?

So say a private property vendor wants to propose a commercial pad. Their polygon space is 3,300 square feet.

Okay, yeah.

So how many parking spaces would that... required how many parts space would that require three three okay that was my thought with that if your food truck is serving that square footage of occupancy which from the building code is many many people three spaces again is not going to satisfy how many people you're going to serve in at one time so again this is kind of a bit of a a reasonable ceiling cap and that we don't have these expansive polygons where there's clearly you're serving up to 50 people at a time and there is zero mitigation on site. It is all being diffused. So most of those people might be walking, hopefully biking, But there's going to be a portion of those that, especially in these residential zones, are going to be parking in competition with other semi-public parking, we'll call it. But anyway, so that's just, when we're thinking of these numbers, think of how big that actually is of a commercial area. So I wish we had one in mind of a brick and mortar restaurant to see how many, imagine how many people would be in there.

Well, I don't think a lot of you have been in my office, but my office is 1,100 square feet. 3,000 is huge.

So I guess, Shayla, you know, it's huge. It's a lot of space. Granted, that fits your apparatus and it fits all your accoutrements and your pieces but that's the whole point of us i think identifying hey you can fit however much stuff however many tables however much stuff you want within the polygon but the polygon will be treated as commercial area so that we get away from this whole well you can only have six tables and one umbrella which is where currently reason it's a nightmare we just say no this is how many seasons the building code and the fire code they can grapple way better with something like that as well uh based off of occupancy occupancy calculations definitely worry about these requirements and limiting they just seem limiting on like being able to find that much space for rent or to purchase

I get the fairness factor, but it's not the same as a brick and mortar. So I do feel like this is pretty limiting when we're talking about like food trucks, basically. Yeah. I don't know. What are your thoughts?

Yeah.

Like, there's not a lot of options. I'm trying to think of the name of the one that's over at Dave's Corner Market, and it's the snake oil. La Duena? Yes, that one. So good. And it is so good. But that's, every time I'm like, this is coming to my mind, that they have a pad of land. I don't know if it's from their house that's right there. I'm not sure.

Mm-hmm.

But that's what I'm visualizing in a certain zone that, oh, hey, I have this unique property that I also butt up right to a main road. I'm going to put a food truck out there. And like, I walk to it because it's right there. I don't see a parking issue. You know, like, I mean, there's mills right on the opposite side. I mean, I think it's so fast. Don't. see parking being a huge problem because usually at a food truck, you're, you're eating fast. You go, you get your food, you walk, you leave, whatever. 3000 is pretty big space. So I,

Yes. There's not a lot of... What would the business, like La Doña, how would that fit into the rewrite? What would that be categorized as? Where I think they're renting that from Dave's. Are they?

I mean, I just don't know.

I don't think they're renting that from Dave's, and there are parking spots. There are parking...

yeah usually i just walk so yeah that's that's the only thing that can come to my mind that's not inside like the food truck other than like snake no that's a great example it's actually one of the cases that we're evaluating of where the natural pull of the operations and they're not in compliance by many many factors but the pull of operations is pulling them so we're looking at well if If that's what everyone's seeming to do and everyone's wanting to operate in such a way that to be successful, it requires X. Our code, if it's just arbitrary, Y. Let's fix it so that something like that could be available. The only tidbit that we're adding here that is not like, hey, just go crazy. It's permitted use. No use parameters is that we have to ensure we're. I guess, addressing health and safety concerns as well as common welfare, which calls into effect the mitigations of impacts. At a certain number of people, you are putting an impact onto your adjacency, hence screening at a certain size. But that's exactly, we're looking at that, like how could that be totally approved, totally compliant? What would we need to add to that to diffuse those impacts? So that's at least one of the lens I've been looking at this ordinance. And there's a few other unique ones, which are numbers of food trucks. Maybe they don't have quite the setup as lithuania but they are they're like this makes perfect sense to have two food trucks but they can't right these ratio scales would allow for something like that um but that's the perfect lens to be thinking about this yeah the the um way that you guys are talking about eating quickly and just the essence of a food truck it makes me think that perhaps um

parking space per vendor court area would be better as parking space per vendor. And the amount of tables and chairs you have because people are, the turnover is so quick. The amount of seating area that you're taking up may not be as important as I was thinking. Thinking when I wrote that, that was the intent is that you're filling up all 10 tables. But normally when I'm driving around and I see 10 tables, they're not completely full. And if they are, you wait a couple minutes and they're not. So we could go in that direction if that sounds reasonable.

They're definitely a fork. And I think if the commission wants to go that way, we can explore. I think from staff perspective, the idea of ratioing is a way of expanded formulas to keep things sound. If we make a static one spot per truck, those equally no longer calculate at certain formula outtakes.

Yeah, and it's clear. I feel like the clearer things are for applicants, for the public, you can look at it and know like extremely easily what the requirement is. And I do think there's something to be said for that. Yeah.

Yeah. I think that's certainly the pursuit and balance is how do we make this very repeatable, very clear and also amendable. Their business is doing well. Okay. Let's see how we can increase. Okay. Maybe we're a downsize. We can reduce some of these things. But yeah, I get a little nervous of having static regulations, given that we're trying to move away from the, almost explicitly.

What you're saying, you don't want one space per one? Correct.

I want it off ratio, is what I'm saying. Now, yeah, this is formula-based. There's one food truck, yet they're on a 20-acre parcel, and they take up 10 of it with hundreds of chairs. They have one parking space, yet the occupancy load, this is, again, a crazy hypothetical, but say it's really popular, and that's where people go. There is no mitigation for that in this instance no mitigation so all of that burden of the use falls onto the public realm all of it so that would be based on how many tables they have or something so yeah a way a restaurant is calculated for fire code purposes in building is off of square footage areas and for a food truck would that be the same then that's what we're trying to do is we're making these in league with restaurants okay so you can have as big of a food truck use as you see can be you know successful yeah or you can make this small so what we don't want to do by being static is that small businesses have to have the burden that big businesses do and big businesses don't get this great awesome exemption that they should be offsetting their impact because there are so much bigger yeah that's how a ratio-based scaling of code keeps you proportional to however big you are that's your code yeah it is more complex but that's and people get mad when they say that's job security for us and that we're here to help you through this code and designing a code around too much citizen forward or too much applicant forward is like you're going to be limiting the sophistication of your code, you're going to end up with more conflict, is what my observation has been. Planners are here to have complex code and help you get through it.

I feel like that certainly makes sense. I feel like in this one very specific context, because food vendors are like, they're already, you know, you're not having like a food vendor pulling like a trying to think of an example of something that's just like ginormous.

I know. Well, if we can, let's go back to the LaDuane Desert. I'm sorry to be calling this business by name, but they are a great example of some of these things. Jill's observation, it doesn't seem like there's a parking issue. I would say that's probably not accurate to the facts. I think what you're finding is people are parking off-site or adjacent sites and businesses that they're not supposed to be patronizing. So Dave's or now there's, you see, since some of these went in, there's a big old yellow barrier because people were starting to be like, they're parking in my driveway to go. So I would say that parking not being an issue is maybe a symptom of people being really collaborate on where to park and how to park. But I wouldn't say that it's not. That burden is. That's one of the constants here.

Based on area makes sense. I feel like it was based on tables that just threw me for a loop because I was like, well, then they're just not going to be tables.

That's where we want to get exactly. We're just saying, just like the building code, you could potentially fit this many humans in here. That's what we'll calculate off. So you have three tables. You could have 20 tables. We don't care. It's this area can reasonably fit this many humans. Therefore... will mitigate off that number.

Yeah. And this is pretty complicated stuff. So my my brain is thinking I'll walk us through an example. So landowner comes in. I may want a couple food trucks. I'll go for this food vendor court. I'm going to lay out a site plan. I don't want to do too much improvement to my property. and I've got only three spaces to work with, four spaces to work with. So I'm only gonna give each food vendor 300 square feet for their circle. So then you only have four spaces because the landowner has only given you 300 square feet to work with. And then, If a vendor comes in and starts adding a bunch of tables and we see, then we'll come to the land owner and say, it looks like you're out of compliance with your site plan. You're going to need to talk to your vendor or amend your site plan to add another parking space. So it's really within the control of the property owner. working with the vendor because they don't have to have a lot of parking if you limit yourself. The area ratio allows for a lot of flexibility. And yes, there's going to be some down falls if you want to be big, but that's the price you have to pay for the impact that you're creating.

So, yeah. That's actually, you've made a really good point that through this, And in the spirit of entrepreneurism and our desire to expand our economy, we're using this term as host becoming the primary, like this is a land use. So just like a professional office building, the building owner and the building itself, we're not coming after the tenant because something's going on in the property. So we want these tenants, the food trucks themselves, can just come in and operate. We want them to be able to plug and play, leave, go, stay. They should have the benefit of landing on a adequately hosted property. It is on the host. to receive this land use, which will become a mixed use property. It is a, I'm trying to think of it. It is a retail, it's a retail business and a food vendor. It is no longer your food vendor. And then there's this food truck over here that kind of does its thing. You have a mixed use property at that point. And that, again, that's a land use right that will run with the property owner. So they get some benefit out of this. Yeah.

Okay, so with the minimum area per vendor, we can see that I've thrown in a bit of a difference, kind of aligned with the hours of operation. I've highlighted the zones C3, C5, and RC as our popping zones. So it requires less area so then you can have more vendors. Maybe we'd like to decrease the parking ratio in those areas as well. Or maybe we want to increase it because those are less neighborhood walkable areas. Thoughts on increasing or decreasing any of these numbers?

no again i think it was the minimum area per vendor that was more or less taken from the food truck park each vendor in the food truck park has approximately this much to house their apparatus the eating space right in front of them and any kind of uh auxiliary elements trash storage those types of things so in theory you're you're you're hat polygon should be able to fit all the things with a reasonable tables in front of you. And if I'm reading this right, for every 300 additional square feet beyond that, so to, you know, the minimum area is this, but they can expand. So if they have 2,000 square feet, it's two parking spaces. If they have 2,300, now they have three. Is that right?

Yeah, I think I misanswered your question before. Okay. If somebody is legitimately taking up 3,300 square feet, as you said before, that'd be 11 parking spaces.

Okay. So that is a good jumping off point of when a minimum parking standard is set. That through this amount of square footage, we're only going to require... One or two. And then every additional ratio above that becomes an additional.

Yeah. Right now my minimum is 300, which isn't right.

So that would be, you know, in a restaurant, that is how we do this. Assuming there's employees, there's, there's all sorts of nature of the square footage out there. So that's maybe a recommendation I might make is that we come up with the base model of a food truck is typically a A, an apparatus with one or two employees, so we're going to call it one vehicle for the apparatus itself. And then maybe there's customarily one additional spot. So that's two, that's basically in my mind, roundabout, be two parking spaces for one customary vendor site. So 2,000 square feet. So any additional 300 square feet of use above that, we add parking spaces. So it's kind of now I'm doing this whole fixed slash variable system.

I like that a lot. I'm sorry if I confused you by answering the question wrong earlier.

And that's just that when we're talking anything above that, a lot of that space is taken up by non-occupiable space, so to speak. Your trash receptacles, your apparatus, your connection points, stuff behind buffering spacing. But when you're adding square footages... to that polygon, you're not adding more dumpsters typically. You're adding more tables. So that's, again, I don't need to beat it to death, but I think that's a fair, and that's, that's. That makes sense. We have that in other places in the code. So we're not just shooting from the hip there necessarily.

Wonderful. Okay. If we could get to buffering, that would be great. So I have, I've thrown in standard buffering just because that's nicely already set out for us.

Right.

And then I had another category that's a little less, just events. Very open to comments on standard buffering or just the fence. And then we can talk about numbers of vendors that would trigger those events. Again, just pick standard buffering because it's convenient. But if we wanted to make something more custom, that would.

I think actually what you proposed makes good sense. Mm-hmm. And the scale fits with the zone as well. I want to split our C4 into C4. Oh, man.

I think our industrial zone, C4.

C-A-C-R-1 or something. I don't know.

I'm very, very eager for our general plan. Say, hey, these areas are different. Yeah.

Yeah. I think what you have is a good start. Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, guys. Yeah, thank you. That was really, really helpful. I like the matrix.

I like seeing comparisons. Same.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, I just said same. I was agreeing.

And then on top of everything in the matrix, we also have additional standards that are more about alluding to building fire and health standards, just so people know what they're in for. Essentially, when they're looking at our code, even though most of it is referencing other people's codes. And then we have setbacks. Right now, everybody has to just follow the setbacks of whatever zone they're in. Maybe like ADUs have reduced setbacks. I'd love your guys' input on whether you think they should follow setbacks of the zone or similar to ADUs, do a minimum fire standard setback. I don't know if that even applies to drugs, but five feet would be that.

Sure.

Of reducing? Mm-hmm.

Although we could reduce them all, so. Yeah. Well, so with that, as food trucks, that's a current problem. Food trucks are trying to go into zones to find some unique opportunities. But those zones, particularly those mixed-use commercial residential zones, have really disadvantageous setbacks. And so they're like, this kills my business right away. I'm so far away from the street that it feels weird. And so that's something we're already observing a little bit.

Yeah, and we could throw it up in the matrix and those zones that are close to residential, we could have them follow the setbacks and then far out zones, have them be at five feet.

And that's really where I think the standard and Reduced buffering of that matrix is really helpful because we did talk that through. Setbacks are helpful for structures, which this may have apparatus structure type, but really the impact that can be mitigated is better served through buffering and screening than it is just space.

Mm-hmm.

setbacks doesn't necessarily constitute. It just means you're a few feet further away. That's not going to stop the travel of a voice or the travel of a smell. But a fence or types of mitigations often do a better job of trying to help with that.

I like the idea of putting it in the matrix because I do think it depends on what zone.

Yeah.

That's good. I'd like to see it in a matrix. Okay.

Today, in preparation for this meeting, I did go and patronize a newly established food truck to go through the experience, see what it felt like. There were some notes from our treasurer's office, actually. I noted, I'm like, hmm, that's interesting. There's some notes I won't bring it up, but it had to do with trash and how we should navigate enclosures of trash or the fact that they need to have a trash. Yeah.

Is that what it was?

Yeah, we can talk about it later. But so in the spirit of that, I propose one of our future meetings, we should go on a food truck crawl. I agree. To attend at least four or five food trucks. As I'm literally sitting here thinking, where am I going to get dinner on the way home tonight?

I'm starving.

I'm halfway kidding. I'm only halfway kidding.

And we'll make a TikTok and then we'll get more planning commissioners. Here we go.

Oh, I love this. Blur people in.

We'll leave that to the Gen Z in the room can do that. This elder millennial is out. Well, thank you, Johanna. Thank you guys. Just cranking through it. I love it. All right. Next, we have future agenda items. What do we have coming up? Let's take a look. I'm looking at our attendance sheet as well. It looks like we will have a quorum for the next meeting, the next couple, but just noting that we're hanging on by one for all of those. Yeah, I'll be here. I will be remote. I will have to figure out ASAP if I have strong enough Wi-Fi where I'm going to be.

I will also be remote.

Historically, I've not had strong enough Wi-Fi where I'm going to be at my family member's house. So I will let y'all know ASAP.

Okie doke. I don't think I have anything lined up other than code. So fun. Yeah. Yeah, I can't think of anything. We're working on sign code right now, along with the vendor.

On that note, the two kind of coordinating points is that we have a new planning staff member joining our professional team on Monday. So we'll have a new face sitting around the dais. It will be a planner one. Her name is Caitlin Porter. We're super thrilled to have her join our team. So with that, I'll probably be demoting myself away from the dais to sit in the gallery as a community development director, not in a formal planning staff anymore. Exactly. But I will be here every meeting. Kelsey and I will be holding up the CDD fort over there. And then along with that, with the increased planning staff, I will also, this is not really for anybody here, but we're going to really try to build a massive bonfire under getting this code done. I think the mayor and everyone else. So I will be at a place with my projects and we have staff. To be removing myself from kind of operational duties to hyper-focus on getting the code with the way it has been working through it and doing it up done. So we're going to get it done this year. For sure this year. I hope it's through this dedication this summer. Cool. So there's the update from that.

All right. I like it. Sounds great. Thank you, everyone. Shaley, thanks for attending in absentia there.

Sorry, again, like between baseball and it's Gavin's birthday, but I... I appreciate it.

And yeah, I will let staff know ASAP if I'm going to have enough service in the woods of northern Wisconsin.

All right.

Okay, I'll adjourn this meeting at 7.30.