Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

or streaming no you're good okay got it all right we have um a lot of new faces so i will uh list off who is here that i know and then we will have our new folks introduce themselves um uh just always a reminder to just speak into the microphone not only so people in chambers if there happen to be a lot of people here at some point can hear you but also because we are recording on youtube and we have someone who's transposing the meeting as well, listening in. All right. In attendance, we have our associate planner, Johanna Blanco, our new junior planner, Caitlin Pointer, planning commissioners, Jill Tatton, myself, Kai Marienfeld, Shaylee Holland, and our two new planning commissioners, robin vincent hello hello and matt everett all right robin and matt welcome we're glad to have you kelsey garcia miles option our city council liaison and cory shortlove cory what's your title now you can even spell it Okay. Community Development Director are here as well. That is it in chambers. Welcome to Caitlin and Robin and Matt. We're super excited to have all of you. Yay. It's like a full room of people. It's really weird. We have a full commission here. Awesome. It's been a while. All right. Moving on to our first item of business. Approval of minutes from our last meeting, which was way back in the beginning of July, our July 9th meeting. I guess Jill and Shaley, if either of you have had an opportunity to look at those and want to make a motion. New commissioners, you are allowed to vote, even if you weren't at the meeting. You can abstain if you want to. but you're just voting to approve the minutes that someone else has made a motion for, but it's totally up to you. Yep. Any corrections or anything?

I read through it, and so I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the regular commission meeting on July, not January, July 9th, 2026.

All right. Motion to approve the minutes from Jill. I second it. Second from Shaley. All right. All those in favor of approving our minutes from the July 9th meeting, please say aye. Aye. All right. All five votes to approve the minutes. It's very exciting. Okay, next we have a public hearing. This is a public hearing, which is 3.1 on our agenda. Consideration and possible recommendation to city council of city ordinance 2026-16 and ordinance of the Moab City Council amending section 2.52.030 planning commission chapter 16.08 subdivision procedure. And section 17.12050 damaged building restoration of the Moab municipal code. to extend the recording deadlines for approved final plats and the related one-time extension for such plats, to eliminate the public hearing requirement for preliminary plats, to adjust planning commission attendance requirements, and to amend regulation on rebuilding or renovating non-conforming structures and uses after a fire or calamity. We're cramming it all in with this public hearing. Okay. What I'll do is I will open the public hearing and then we can hear from staff. Commissioners can discuss. And then it looks like it's just a public hearing tonight.

It's also an action item. It is also an action item.

Okay. Was that noticed properly for that? Okay. It just says public hearing, so I was confused. All right. I will open the public hearing at 6.06 p.m. Johanna, take it away.

Okay, that was quite the mouthful. So we've got three main things happening under subdivision. We've got two sub things happening. So we are deleting the public hearing out of the subdivision procedure. We're extending the amount of time that somebody can go record a subdivision plat. amending the non-conforming damaged building restoration and amending the planning commission attendance. So for damaged building restoration, this was brought to us by a community member who noticed that our code was out of alignment with state code. So right now our code says that one can replace up to 50% of the replacement value of a building that was burned down, that was non-conforming. State code says you can replace the whole building up to the same extent in character by natural calamity, even if it is non-conforming. So changing it to be up to state code. And if you're interested in reading that state code, there's the section. And here are what those red lines look like. A subdivision plaid. So our current code has a public hearing requirement, which is somewhat odd for an administrative action. Then we have a 180 day limit in between approval and then going to record. And then in our current code, there's also an extension that you can get for 30 additional days. Um, our proposed code is deleting the public hearing requirement and then having a year limit from approval date to recording, and then an additional exception that could be granted for an additional year. So up to two years from approval of a plat to recording. So the public hearing looks to be a remnant of an old code change where we just did not fully execute because it doesn't make too much sense to hold a public hearing. You may have noticed we don't do the public hearings for PLATS at Planning Commission. We've been doing them just in our offices and we have not gotten anybody involved. to come into the office for one of those public hearings. So not too much demand from the public for those. And then for the extending of the deadlines, it gives more flexibility for developers who in their planning and plan approval, they need to make infrastructure improvements as a condition of their approval before recording. So this would allow them more time to say, put in the sidewalks or whatever is being required of them before they can go record. This is to help with people who you either need to build what's being required or bond. So some developers that do not have the liquid cash to bond, this would benefit them. Okay, and that's what that red line looks like along with this. Okay, and then our final section of this code amendment is the Planning Commission attendance. Current code says Planning Commission members must attend 75% of meetings in a year to remain members. Postcode is planning commission members who do not attend 75% of meetings or more or have three unexcused absences may be removed. So the may in there gives us a little bit of cushion, and then we have added in those excused, unexcused absences. And that is just to bring us into alignment with the bylaw amendment that we made a few meetings ago. And that's what that red line looks like. And that's the end of my briefing.

So can you explain to me what an unexcused absence is?

Yeah, absolutely. We can discuss more about the bylaws after the meeting as well. But an unexcused is just letting me know at least a week in advance.

like a no-show basically okay definitely like in the past not anytime recently have struggled with like someone just having no idea if someone's going to come or not and then don't have corn it's a surprise um so just trying to avoid that and um it doesn't have to be for any reason just letting kaya or i know for any reason that she'll be gone yeah

We also have like an attendance Excel spreadsheet, which has been very helpful. Yeah, so helpful. Pre-plan going, I know I'm going to have it down.

Exactly.

It's like, obviously, recurring meetings are hard for everyone to try to make sure that people have enough advance notice, understanding that.

Understand. Back to the public hearing.

Yeah. One.

Can you give an example for everyone of what this would look like? What kind of competition would this be? Yes.

Yes. So I'm going to make a fake development. So it's a subdivision. And if you're subdividing enough lots, then you're required to put in some infrastructure to serve those lots. So this subdivision is making eight lots and they need to put in all the utilities into those lots. They do not have the resources to bond for that, but they have their approval. It's going to take them a bit of time to organize everything, to get the construction, get everything in the ground that they need. And additionally, they gotta put sidewalk over the utilities they just put in. So it's gonna take them more than 180 days to do all the infrastructure that they need before going to record. Under our current code, they would need to be somewhat forced to bond in that situation and not have too many options because of the time limit.

And the lack of public hearing. That was a change that we had made already, would you say?

It looks to be so. I didn't go and find the last amendment, but it, yeah.

So, in general, I'm sorry. I'll push the dice, Corey. Okay.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Corey Shurtleff. I'm the Community Development Director. So this change, when the state legislation had passed that required procedural amendments for subdivision process, we went through that with our legal review. And during that process, it was unclear that whether a public hearing was required within the process somewhere. So when the city elected that we were not going to maintain a body authority outside of the planning coordinator for that process. At the time, city councils were removed. It could be an option whether a city chose to have a planning commission or a planning coordinator as the ultimate authority. When we changed to administrative process, that public hearing was an option. You could have one if you had a public body. But as we went administrative, it really became a redundant process, but it was left in the code. So I wouldn't say it was directly an error. We acknowledged that it was in there. It was just unclear on the legal review whether it was required to be maintained or not. So through the process that we've had a couple, we went back to our attorneys and we're saying, are you sure that this is required for us to have, even though it's administrative? Ultimately, now that the legislation has been in action for the year, we've determined that, yeah, it was not necessary given that we went through this process. So, yeah, it wasn't an omission or an error per se. It was acknowledged, but we've come to a better understanding now where it'd be a lot more streamlined for our process to not require that. Thank you.

Thanks, Greg.

Can I ask a question? So, Johanna, can you give me an example? So I understand this was from the developer side when you were explaining it. But how does this affect the public? Like, what is the change for them? You said nobody's been attending the meetings. So is it going to Is there going to be a negative impact to public transparency and information?

I don't believe so. Once something is approved, any member of the public can come into my office and I can walk them through the approval process. And public input would not be grounds for me to deny somebody's application anyways. So after approval would be an appropriate time to educate the public.

Corey's got the history on this.

Yeah, sorry. I don't mean to continue to interrupt. And thank you for letting me come up, Corey Sherliff. It's my first meeting not sitting in the diocese. It's an odd transition for me. But to the public testimony, and I think Johanna is not incorrect at anything she's just said, in that I just want to add that When approvals are made administrative, what we mean by that is that there is no legislative action or discretion in that. If it meets the standards of the code, it must, by law, be approved. Therefore, having public hearings accompanying administrative processes create actually a disconnect of, hey, we as the community have opposition or resistance or critique against that we cannot uphold. So it actually creates kind of this duality that is really challenging for both the public and staff. So that isn't to say that there is no public comment. So when it is going through the, oh, I guess with this, there is no process, but prior to approval, I guess it is after, public testimonies to the criteria or an appeal process. I see what it is you're saying. I'll go sit down now. that public testimony can be taken into account when these decisions are made, but that there is no public hearing or public body reviewing the criteria, which is why we even appreciate even site plans going through the planning commission. It gives the public the opportunity to come sit, observe, when we give you the approval matrix that the staff is doing their job correctly you can read the code just as well as the full public so that could be done in advance of the planning coordinator approving it but it's unlikely you would know the determination of the planning coordinator until it is approved so that would be a 30-day appeal process you say i believe you inter have interpreted the code incorrectly we're going to appeal that. We could either stay that and say, oh yeah, we see the observation and we'll remand it back or believe that our interpretation is correct and then the public can pursue it further. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I think that helps me understand. So I don't, it's, you know, being a member of public, it's always alarming when there's, when you say no public hearing required. So I wanted that explained. I understand it's administrative and then there's a 30 day appeal or something. Okay. Thank you, you guys.

Like our, our code is quite outdated and messy. So the hope is that we're streamlining the process so that the last things have to come to get exceptions understood.

And that's just a recent change that was made up of the state as well was giving more power, power, more just sort of the checklist making sure the checklist is met kind of responsibilities um even taking it off of power plates and putting it literally just on the staff who know it best to see it in and day out and kind of like not waste almost wasting that extra step so just trying to streamline it a little bit more um when it is something that's it that's not discretionary basically um uh just making that a little bit easier so that was even a recent change that this sort of follows with too i think The question so and please anyone chime in at any time and ask. Anyone else have any discussion or questions about any of the proposed changes.

No.

I do have one more question. Sorry, I'm trying to understand everything. So the proposed code is going to go from basically half a year to a one year for the recording. But then the extension goes from 30 all the way to a whole other year. Can you explain why do we need that big jump in time? That's a huge jump in time.

It is a huge jump in time. I can depend on that too. We've seen a lot of projects actually in the last like few years that have had to like come and redo a process at the city because the economy was weird and they had to put things on hold for a while or something was strange with getting the infrastructure and like water sewer power, um, And a year is actually not that long in sort of like building land. Right, right.

In construction time. Right, right.

Behemothly, as I said. So to me, that seems pretty logical, knowing that there have been a fair bit of like cyclones that we've had expire, like literally had cyclones expire. then those were already here, process, or more than that, whatever the cycles are now. Yeah. So even our longer time frames. So that 30, yeah.

So nothing other than the one-year extension was discussed? Or is it a, I mean, I need information.

Yeah, that's what we thought would be best practice, but it is... up to your discussion today.

I think with a lot of developments that are happening that sometimes it's very much out of the project control of how fast it moves on or not. And I think that the change in this code, the hope that we're trying to get out of this, correct me if I'm wrong, is to, again, stop having to make so many discretionary changes where people are having to come in and getting site plans re-approved. We're already okay with them, even though it may have taken longer than they anticipated and we hoped it would. we wouldn't then come back and be like, oh, you're halfway through your project, so we're going to decline that site plan. So it just gives a little bit more freedom to our planners to be able to make some of these decisions without having to come in and do exceptions.

Understood.

I would say probably also for a developer, it makes it I think seem much more reasonable on paper so that I feel like it probably is more difficult, should be more difficult to get an exception instead of sort of this assumption that you'll get an exception because 180 days isn't that long or an extension, excuse me. Where it's like, no, you really had enough time.

I understand that. Yeah, no, that's a good point.

You can kind of see that being the case too, where it's not like, well, of course we're going to do an extension. Like I've, I will say I never, ever once have not gotten an extension on filing of my opening brief in a case in the Interior Board of Land Appeals because it's 30 days and we don't even have the administrative record by that point. And so it's one of those like on the books, it just doesn't make sense and everyone knows it and everyone's going to get an extension. I'd rather have the actual timeframe be something workable almost. I don't know. And then Joanna can be a... Yeah.

The danger here is for a developer who misses the time limit. One year we got crazy monsoon, something happened with their first contractor one year. It could absolutely not be enough to plan for all the missed opportunities or whatever happens in construction. And so an extension would be given because they're making a fair effort to continue diligently with construction. And then if we didn't have as long of the extension for them to actually then engage in the construction, they might lose their vesting and then have to come through and do the project again. And then a code that is pivotal to their project might be changed in the meantime. And then they need to do a slight redesign to their project is a worst scenario. And then their plans need to change and that could affect how they get built.

Right.

Okay, so I'll try to make this my final question. Does anybody can play devil's advocate to that? Because everything has been pro, pro, pro. Why this is a good thing? Is there any negative to it that anybody can share or wants to share? Sorry.

I think there certainly are. There are certainly co-changes we've had where we would like them to apply to something, but as a project was already in process, it was already vested. It didn't. You know, we've had a lot of housing initiatives that have kind of fallen in that area. We've had, I'm trying to think of other examples, but just proactive changes, which are nice and helpful and good for the community that like, oh, but darn, that apartment complex was already, they already were vested. And so we can't apply our new requirement that 30% of the units be restricted for local occupancy. That's probably the clearest example I have of something where But if they didn't get their butts in gear in time and their permitting labs, basically their site plan, they would have to start all over and then they would not take grandfathering.

Right, right. So that's an example of that.

But I also think we have less of those kind of code initiatives these days than we did. We did a lot of that already. So it's a different world right now. So, yeah.

Thank you guys for educating me. I appreciate it.

It's really helpful to talk things through. We've all been the new guy. Very true. Any other questions or concerns about any of the potential code amendments we're looking at this public hearing? All right. I am assuming the person who joined us in chambers is not here for this.

He's on the next one.

That said, we did not receive any comments online. And we don't have anyone in chambers for the public hearing. So I will close the public hearing at 628 p.m. And take this as an action item now. yes okay i guess i'm used to seeing it then because an action item agenda was my confusion um okay there is a very long motion motion i was gonna take a crack at it um on the table and we can we can hear a motion uh that have more discussion if we'd like to otherwise we can um just take a look whenever there's a motion

I move that the city of Moab Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Moab City Council for City Ordinance 2026-16, an ordinance of the Moab City Council amending section 2.52.030, Planning Commission Chapter 16.08, Subdivision Procedure, and Section 17.12.050, Damage Building Restoration of the Moab Municipal Code to extend the recording deadlines for approved final plats and the related one-time extension for such plats to eliminate the public hearing requirement for preliminary plats, to adjust Planning Commission attendance requirements, and to amend regulations on rebuilding or renovating nonconforming structures

and uses after a fire or calamity that's my one tonight my one we have a uh recommended positive uh excuse me positive recommendation from shaley um is there a second i'll go ahead and second that all right a second from jill uh any further discussion Okay. All those in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, everyone. Great questions. Good discussion. Thanks for the info, Corey and Johanna. All right, moving on. Our next item is another action item. This is 4.1, consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 14-2025, a resolution conditionally approving a level two site plan for the CHP development for property located at 941 West 400 North, Moab, Utah, 84532. And I'm taking by the hat that this is what our friend in the audience is here for. So we will have staff do a little presentation. And then if you'd like to come up and say anything or be available for questions, you're welcome to. All right.

I've got a quick question for you. Is James Green here on your behalf tonight? Wonderful. We have who we need in our room.

yeah he must be in the waiting room in the zoom waiting room are we going to be careful because of what's going on with the county website yes be careful who we let into the meeting i don't even know that was a thing oh this is the second time it's happened since i've moved i haven't paid attention to the county that much but yikes um all right uh okay johanna yeah all right

Okay. We've got a level two site plan here today. The location is 941 or 1053 West 400 North. It's in the industrial zone. And our applicant is Patrick Davis, who is here today. Proposed use of this property is mixed use, residential and industrial. Okay. So Patrick Davis submitted his application October of 2025. After four rounds of DRT review, he is ready for you guys to review. We've got the site plan here, which you can see has the existing home and then our new building. which is about 8,000 square feet. This is a shortened version of the narrative submitted by the applicant. And then he can speak to this more. But they are having a multipurpose building with intended for use as storage construction equipment. There's going to be office space. and then they will be renting out portions of the building to others who need it. So this plan meets all the review standards. You can see that in the matrix included in your packet. They have one condition to approval, and that is the payment of the sidewalk curb and gutter fee in lieu, which we may remember from a few meetings back. Okay, that's my brief.

There you go. I'm excited that there are plans for this property. It is in our very small but still vibrant industrial zone. In one of like two spots in city limits that are still the I zone. Of course, in history, we had some discussion about this particular property when it was for sale about storage units, allowing storage units. in the industrial zone and in the context of a potential buyer for this property. I'm not sure if that was this, but it was the last time that kind of came before us other than the curb and gutter thing. So yeah, would you like to come up and say anything? Answer questions? If you would just introduce yourself real quick into the mic so we can have that for the record, that'd be great.

My name is Patrick Davis, CHP Properties.

Great. Thanks. Welcome. So yes, this is a level two site plan. This is something that we see, offer, approve, just making sure. And this is something for us that is one of those administrative actions where we are basically making sure that all the proper things were checked off but we don't have discretion to just deny or amend something out of pocket if we if we make a recommendation a negative recommendation um or is it approval now i'm still getting those backwards no we're the final yes authority so the approval used to be a recommendation to city council to approve it now it's just us um If we deny it, we have to give good reason, found it in something that they didn't do, basically. According to the administration. Exactly, exactly. So for at least my mind when I'm looking at these kind of items, the staff recommendation goes a long way because y'all are in the weeds and ultimately catching things. And there's often... a condition like this, like conditioned on a final landscaping plan or something like that. I would say there's like a threshold, probably Corey, Johanna, where like something can't just be a condition that needs to be done, done before it gets to us. But there are some sort of smaller things that I think.

Yeah. Anything that could possibly affect the layout of the site plan is not going to be a condition.

So nothing major. Are there any questions for Shaili?

Well, I think more for the planning department as a whole on this one. With us changing the sidewalks stuff on territory and knowing this area really well, I guess I'm trying to understand why the sidewalk in lieu of when we just approved that change in code. Because it feels like it's kind of the same thing that we approved for pear tree area. I would just love some clarification on that. I don't know that a sidewalk makes sense right where this property is.

Yeah, absolutely. So Shaley's referring to a new code amendment that we just made to the option to pay fee in lieu instead of constructing sidewalk at the time of construction. This property in particular does not meet the criteria of the fee in lieu exception that was utilized by the Pear Tree Lane property.

It's very close to meeting that exception. It doesn't meet all of them, but...

I'd be like, that's a good question. Yeah.

Any other questions? Can you go back to the previous slide just so I can, yeah, I want to just look at that for a minute. And then the previous slide, please. Absolutely. Thank you.

Feel free to ask questions. I know that's hard to see from here.

May I make a few comments? Sure, please. So a little bit of background on this property. We're a small electrical contractor in the city. We originally purchased this property, kind of had some good ideas for it. We didn't run it past you guys or anything. We met with Corey and Barry and Didar. Originally, we have quite a few employees that live in RV parks. So we were actually planning on using this space to create like four long-term RV spots that were really nice for employees, fenced in, separation to where they could actually feel like they had a place at home. That didn't work with the city code. Barry and... Corey and those guys said, well, one of the things that the city really means is people need a place to run a business, like a construction business to be able to put construction equipment. So that's why, well, we needed more space to put our equipment in there. So we've created two more, we've got two leaseable spaces so that people have a place to run their business. The Sidewalk fee in lieu has been a very sore subject for us. That's a lot of money for a small business to come up with. And if any of you guys are familiar with that area there's no room for a sidewalk yeah i mean it's an industrial zone and you guys just built the sewer plant just finished the new building down there obviously there was no room for a sidewalk for you guys either like it just doesn't make sense um we deeded i think over an eighth of an acre that's part of this so we've deeded an eighth of an acre to Moab City for the entire easement through that property. And so not only are we giving you guys an eighth of an acre, but now we're also expected to write you a check for almost $30,000. It's pretty steep in our opinion.

What are the criteria that they're not quite meeting, Johanna? I'm going to need to pull that up.

Okay.

Yeah, I used to live over there. I walked right past that property every day with my dog.

That road is kind of tight down there.

Yeah, it is.

Trying to start squeezing a sidewalk in there would be...

Totally. Well, the business model, you're totally right. There's a super need for that. So I hope... I hope we all have success with that because I can name several people. One of them is sitting in the audience who probably needs places to store equipment. I don't know if he heard you.

No. Miles, we're talking about you.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, number one. F is the one that we're talking about. I can read aloud if we're having trouble. So number one, I think that's unfortunately the disqualifier. The entire street where the property is located is unpaved in its entirety. It is not unpaved. I know. It's what's in the code. Unfortunately, I'm with you, Shaylee.

I'm struggling because there isn't room.

This is a complete hearsay. I don't know any concrete evidence to this, but from what I understand, actually the street on the west of us, I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank. On the west? Stuart, yes. Stuart is not actually asphalt. It's actually a ground-up road base from another project that was put down there, and then it's been sealed over the top, so it's not actually asphalt.

Well, that's weird because Stuart is a semi-county road, kind of.

Yeah, it is.

Yeah, the city has a road right there. I don't know, are we allowed to think outside the box in these areas?

I mean, we can't, no, but we can certainly encourage, you know, staff to, I don't know, take a look at it. Yeah.

Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And then make recommendations that Yeah.

Well, there's so few properties that this is actually going to impact. Not thinking outside the box on the few properties that does impact is dangerous for us as a city. Uh-huh.

So, so I have two questions that I will maybe help me understand that better too. What, what is this fee based on because, or is it the same for everybody? Or is it based on linear footage or what is the fee based on?

Yeah, absolutely. It is 200 lineal feet of what the city engineer estimates sidewalk curb and gutter to be.

Okay. And so they're taking that fee in lieu of that improvement being put in, correct? And then what happens to that fee?

It gets put into a fund that streets uses to improve or make sidewalks elsewhere.

The same way like our, we have, it's been a while since someone's paid in, but we have like a housing fee in lieu. which goes into a fund that then goes to housing projects. We have a parking fee in lieu, which same thing goes back to like streets and things. So fee in lieu is being intended to encourage applicants to actually do the thing instead of pay the fee in lieu, like high enough for that, but also not too high as to be sort of crippling. But like you said, it's a significant chunk for a small business.

Please stop me if this is a terrible question to ask the applicant. Would you want us to try to suggest that to staff and put this on hold?

Or would you rather just get what happens here to happen? Yes. So if you were to suggest that staff look into a code amendment, then we would look into that and then we would propose it to you. It would go through the same channel as all other code amendments and then put a huge pause on. Yes. Then that would be adopted. And then in order to, um, get that code, we may need to go through the process or have you submit. Again, may. That actually just came up for me today. I'm unsure if you would need to resubmit your site plan application and maybe go through one more round of DRT to get that fee-in-lieu advantage because you're

yeah no the amount of money and time you guys have cost us already we'll pay the fee in lieu so I do have one other question and it might be a really naive one but is there any leeway of restructuring of that fee in lieu or anything that doesn't bind a small business so harshly I don't know I'm Is there any discretion there?

It would be a code change, unfortunately, because of how it's written now. So yeah, the process would be, say it was an applicant who wasn't so far along, who had more time, who had a little bit more flexibility than the present applicant. They could come to the city. They'd say, okay, we really want to do this, but this thing would kind of be a deal breaker for us. Is there a world in which we could change it? And then the applicant could submit or staff could come up with a potential code change or planning commissioners. Then that goes through the process of a code amendment, which is, you know, it's a public hearing. It's coming to us. It's months and months for sure. Corey, feel free to. chime in um but yeah it's it's unfortunately it's not as easy as a um either us or staff saying okay you individual applicant because this really doesn't make sense you don't have to pay it like there's no like administrative like variance you can give on that unfortunately um yeah well i think i'll speak and let's throw a little bit of jargon at you guys um fee and lose are governed in a really um

tight legal structure and that there must be an established central nexus in that these are legal exactions on properties for a proportionate impact mitigation of the impact in which they're creating. So this is basically to say, we can, is there flexibility? I would say in very summarized terms, no, and that it must be exactly proportionate. The terms and legals, the legal phrasing is going to be roughly proportionate. But what that means is often there can be a estimate provided by the applicant that is then certified and confirmed as an engineer's estimate. So it's not even to say that our engineer is the MLBL. It's that there must be a... third-party estimate that is valid and legitimate. And then we can use that within the market. What is the market doing? So it's not a fixed fee and lieu, but the legal structure in which we can allow for a fee and lieu at all must be very, very tight through the Land Use Management Act through the state. So our hands are tied. It just becomes another tool in the toolbox, but it's not one of the super flexible tools, so to speak.

Okay, so thank you for explaining that. So I think I heard you say you can get that third party, you can like get another bid, basically. And then there's some negotiation. Mr. Davis, have you done that? Or is that something you'd look into?

Yes, we did do that. But it was through one of the contractors that actually is looking to rent our space. So his fee was next to nothing. Here, I'll come play your side. I'll give you free rent for two years.

Small business, no app.

Because that made sense to us. So we presented that. They pretty much threw it out and said, no, here you go. Here's what our engineer thought. That was a true, this is the cost to our company because we're going to give this contractor two, three years free rent.

Yeah, they probably had to take the in-kind cost, though, unfortunately.

Yeah.

I see. It's so frustrating.

Three most recent contracts for the contractor we had. So there were, of the three, we used the lowest that we had on files from the last three months.

Which, of course, is high in Moab. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry that this is happening. It's really frustrating.

And does that have to be a lump sum payment?

Good question. It needs to be paid before issuance of the building permit. Yeah.

Okay. I asked all the questions.

No, those are good questions. And I think it's very helpful.

Trying to understand it. Yeah.

A lot of this stuff, one, we don't see it at the Planning Commission. Staff are certainly trying. Applicants go through rigmarole and rigmarole, and it's helpful, I think, for everyone to see that this isn't just some easy thing, typically, which is, I think, we think of Fee and Loo a lot. It's just like, okay, that's just part of the construction costs, but it can be pretty significant.

So for me, if he had said that he wants us to push back, I'd probably say, yeah, and I, for now to go push back. Yeah. So try to get it.

Yeah.

But I'd almost rather do the opposite, approve it with the recommendation for this to be reviewed. Yeah. There's so few spaces in our city and we want to be able to encourage good business growth.

Yeah.

So it's really hard when we're tying hands like this.

well it's particularly in the zone yeah there's literally like three acres of it's so small i said something ridiculous um from a self-serving perspective i don't want to sidewalk right there yeah so yeah no your your home is in um yeah all right so uh very good discussion thank you for sharing everything you've gone through i'm So sorry. It really sucks. There's no other way to say that. But what we have in front of us now is still just the administrative approval of the level two site plan with the staff recommendation we have in front of us with the checklist that's in our packets. with the site plan that is there to get this moving along for these folks. So we can entertain a motion if someone would like. As usual, there's a recommendation, excuse me, recommended motion in the pocket in the agenda summary. With the one condition, we can also add a recommendation after the condition that we would like staff to, Shayla, you said it well, to review. where the curb and gutter sidewalk curbing gutter view applies and consider removing those sidewalk curbing gutter requirements the exception um or or allowing there to be more permissive exceptions that said do you want to make a motion again i move that the city of planning

Moab Planning Commission conditionally approved planning resolution 13-2025, a planning resolution conditionally approving the level two site plan for the CHP development on property located at 941 West, 400 North Moab, Utah 84532 with the following condition. All outstanding comments shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Moab City Planning Department prior to building permit application approval, including a payment of the sidewalk curb and gutter fee in lieu at $29,590. Also would like to recommend that staff review this code and look to help mitigate businesses from having exorbitant costs that don't necessarily make sense for the zoning or the property or the business type.

I think you can just dial that in and just say to review the sidewalk curbing gutter and associated fee-in-lieu following the discussion we've had this evening. And that will sort of capture everything. Getting all flustered. Love it. Hold on. Apologies. We have a motion on the table. So, and then we can, is there a second for Shaley's motion? I'll go ahead and second that. Okay, a second from Jill. Now we can have some discussion.

So the only thing with that motion language is it says to review that fee. That is subject to interpretation. Like, oh, do they want us to raise it? Or do they, you know?

Which is why I think citing to the discussion we've had. Okay. Got it, Kaya. For the discussion we had. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. No, I think that makes sense. And again, it's... This is always what happens. There's always some property owner or someone who's sort of like the... the canary in the coal mine on something that makes change. So I'm sorry that it could be, but I hope the project is a huge success and it, this is just a memory in the past and not too long. So, so we have a motion on the table from Shaley for a positive recommendation or excuse me, approval with a condition and then an addition. of a recommendation to staff to review our existing code and maybe consider some changes. And a second from Jill. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Patrick. Have a good one.

Yes, thank you.

All right. Moving along. Yeah, that's a bummer. That is. I'm just bummed we couldn't put our Vs in. Right. You know me. I'm all about it.

I quit. They're doing a, I don't know if you've been down there lately. Yeah. They've done such a good job.

Yeah.

Oh, totally. Really incredible. Yeah.

I've not been down there.

My in-laws live right there. My husband's business is next door. Totally. I'm there all the time. Right. Right. Done amazing things. Makes sense.

Yeah. And I used to live in the neighborhood just down the street. I know. You did. All right. Next, 4. Where are we? Gosh, 4.2. Consideration and possible approval of Planning Resolution 12-2026. A resolution conditionally approving a level two site plan for the Henry Shaw Hotel for property located at 836 and 840 South Main Street, Moab, Utah, 84532. Johanna? No.

Okay, yeah, this is a hotel with 240 units coming in at 836 and 840 South Main, right next door to the last hotel that we just approved. They are in the C4 zone. So, again, you might be thinking,

No, I thought.

I thought we had a moratorium on those. So in 2019, 836 South Main received site plan approval for a hotel. And now they are coming back with the amount of short term rents. rental units that they received approval for combining with the Silver Stage Hotel that's existing short-term rental units to make one big Beautiful hotel. So I had a dollar for every time I've had to explain why.

The moratorium. And yet hotels are coming up. Just someone on Facebook.

Just in person. You're on the planning mission. Why is there another hotel going? What's being built on your new office? A hotel. Yeah.

This is the last project. Oh, is this the last one? Okay. I do think it's going to be beautiful. I really do. It's going to be right behind me, so it better be beautiful.

Right.

So in February of this year, they submitted their application. We went through three rounds of DRT. and now ready for your guys's review. This is their site plan.

We've got a... Yeah, we've got the hotel in this horseshoe shape, amenities on the inside, parking on the outside,

Um, here is a rendering of what it might look like on the outside and then a floor plan of the many units. And here is their landscaping plan. We may remember them from their landscaping exception. We had a couple of meetings ago, um, as a refresher for our new friends, that was, uh, an exception to allow, uh, um, retaining wall instead of our screening fence requirement. So this project meets all of our standards, as is shown in the matrix, and they do have a few conditions. Engineering would like to see a retaining wall detail sheet that is common for projects that need to field fit retaining walls as the construction is going on. There is going to be a payment of the workforce housing fee in lieu. That is a fee in lieu.

Yeah, that's a big number.

Or construction of workforce housing units. And there also needs to be a boundary line adjustment to combine the two lots. Right now, Silver Sage is on its own lot. And 836 is on its own lots that you can find. And that is the end of my brief.

All right.

Also, we've got applicant online.

I see that. It is weird to see the workforce housing, Thea and Lou. It has been a bit. So here she is, our last one. Basically. But yes. Yes. Another example of a fee-in-lieu. Much more substantial.

This particular applicant is considering investigating construction. Cool.

Okay. I have a question about that logistically, but I will get to it. It looks like we have our applicant on Zoom. Jeff, if you'd like to... Hey, everybody. Yeah. Hi. If you want to introduce yourself and then feel free to add anything to what Johanna said, or if we have questions, we can pop them your way.

Yeah, absolutely. I'm Jeff Finn, owner, developer. We've got James Green on from SET Engineering, who's the civil engineer for the project. in case we have any technical civil questions. But yes, this is the last hotel site. And we are, as the team mentioned, working to construct the workforce housing units instead of paying the fee in lieu. I think that's our hope is we'll actually be able to add workforce housing that comes along with this. We've been working on adding kind of actually going up on above and beyond the requirement here. I think the requirements for somewhere in the 18 to 20 unit range, we're trying to put together a project and do about 30 plus units. So that's still TBD. Hopefully we can work that out. Otherwise we would pay the fee in lieu as outlined here. But other than that, happy to kind of take any questions, any concerns. We'd love to have a chance to discuss them with the commission.

Great. Thank you, Jeff. Any questions from anyone? Yeah. Shelly has a personal question about if you're going to be good neighbors to Edward Jones.

We're generally, hopefully we'll be good neighbors to absolutely everybody around us. So yeah, I think so.

uh anyone else this i mean it's pretty we haven't we haven't had a full site plan level two site plan for a hotel in a while but um it's pretty straightforward like you said we've already seen the landscaping sort of seeing the day out the planning the elevations i think which are a thing on this property so um yeah any any anything i don't have anything i I'm excited to see either more workforce housing getting built or something going back into our Wahoo fund. Yeah.

I do really appreciate that you guys are reviewing options for doing your own type of workforce housing, because I think that was the intent of the ordinance, right? To get, yeah. It does feel like a lot of hotels that have been built have just been like, we'll just pay the money, which does not solve our housing crisis. So I really appreciate that it's at least being looked at.

We're pushing pretty hard with the team on it. So hopefully we'll have a good resolution there. And we're actually going to try to kind of can't guarantee anything, obviously, but we're trying to do more units than are required because it's 240 rooms. It's a lot. And we want to have a place for our staff, a place for other people's staff. So we're pushing hard on that and we'll keep everyone posted.

What is the minimum housing units required for that size?

It is based off of the AMI level that they choose to restrict the units for. So there's a lot of combinations of how many units they would need to build. Because if they go very low income units, then they can build less. And then they could do any sort of combination. They could do four very affordable units, some moderate, and then that would change the number. With the AMI levels that he's proposed and we're looking at right now, I thought- I think it was 18, Joanna. Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. But it could be lower than 18, depending on what that, whatever that acronym is.

Area median income. So that's what basically all of the sort of housing providers use to calculate. You've got like percentages below area median or area median. It's just like a metric of affordability. So if it were, you know, available to individuals and families who are at median income or above, that would be far less or far more units required to sort of make up for that. Yeah.

So yeah, I think we were shooting to make it available to folks below 60% of AMI, so 59% and below. And that calc would be 18 units. We're trying to push to kind of high 20s to low 30s is the goal. So that's what we're working on.

Great. Awesome. Thank you for the questions.

I have one little question.

Where were you planning on doing the workforce housing?

We're working on a site that is over by the rodeo grounds. One of the tricky things about it is technically outside the city limits, although there's parts of the city that are actually further south than that. We're working with the team here to see if that is a viable way to address the requirements. We have a two-acre site over there that we're under contract to purchase to do that.

What are the requirements for distance workforce housing? It doesn't have to be in the city, does it?

It does. Yeah, so we're likely going to be seeing this item in the form of a development agreement so that we can tweak just very slightly the adjustments of the construction so that they can build as they see fit.

Okay. But yeah, that is a requirement now. So, yeah. I think it makes sense in that we don't want it to be like, I remember... back when this ordinance was written, when I was a long, long time ago now, we didn't want it to encourage like bedroom communities where you had the workforce housing that was way far away from what the development was going to be. And so part of the discussion was like, there's parcels. A lot was contemplating, like, there's some large parcels that we're looking at that could potentially have new overnight accommodations on them at that time, and that was, those were things, like, where it was like, oh, they likely are going to have their housing on site somewhere, but just that, you know, you don't want it to be, like, up in Crescent Junction or in Thompson or something is where we're going to make our housing, basically, was sort of the the gist but understanding that like moab city limits and grand county within moab city is kind of arbitrary and weird so yeah maybe worth exploring like a distance instead of it

Yeah, well, this is the last one of the hotel. That was what businesses we hopefully will be drawing in.

Yeah, but I mean, for the Workforce Affordable Housing Ordinance, it only applies to overnight accommodations. So this is really the last one. project until if we don't have a moratorium again which is not something that current council has contemplated doing perfect so this only applies yeah so this is a like a now this very specific problem but that okay so a development agreement would potentially be a way um yeah likely we're meeting about it tomorrow okay cool nice good question mm-hmm um all right any other questions for the applicant or for staff all right as usual there is a recommended motion i want to make a motion i'll let you read it oh super exciting okay ready i move that the city of moa planning commission conditionally approved planning resolution

12-2026, a planning resolution conditionally approving the level 2 site plan for Stay Bridge Hotel for property located at 836 and 840 South Main Street, Moab, Utah, 8532. With the condition of approval, all comments shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Moab City Planning Director prior to building permit application approval, including A, resubmittal or retaining wall detail sheet, B, workforce Housing fee and lieu due before eschewance of building permit in the amount of $2,629,446.03 or the LURA for construction of affordable units and see the boundary line adjustment combining parses 01-0012-0011 and 01-0012-0011.

I think we found our name. Daybridge Hotel? Is that a typo?

Yes, it was. Two typos. Okay. Pardon. You did a great job.

Henry Shaw.

Henry Shaw Hotel. Or... Yeah, Henry Shaw Hotel. And then instead of planning director or planning coordinator, we don't have a planning director.

And I have someone amend the motion on the table to make those changes. Yes. Just say I would like to amend the motion.

I would like to amend the motions to reflect those changes.

Okay. Great. I know, as you read Staybridge, I was like... I was like, that's not what it's called. Okay, so we had a motion... Actually, I should have called for a vote on that first. We're fine. We had a motion from Robin. We had an amended motion from Shaylee. Can I second it? Can I amend it? No. I will go ahead and second it. But Jill will second her amended motion, which just corrects the couple typos in the motion that Robin read. Now, the amended motion is on the table. Amending the planning... director and then the henry shaw hotel instead of state bridge um all right any further discussion or questions or clarifications from anybody All right. We have the Shelly's amended motion on the table. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes 5-0. Thanks, Jeff. Good luck with the project. Thank you all.

And by the way, we're planning some really good block parties.

We'll be there. Thanks, everyone. Bye.

Thank you. Thank you.

It'll be the parking lot, you know? Renee and I share a parking lot. It's going to be like a parking lot party. I mean, it'll be like what they're doing on Center Street at Rachel's place. It'll just be Renee's and Edward Jones hanging out. And the hotel. Yeah.

Great. All right. Thanks, everyone. Good discussion. Moving forward. All right. All of our action items are done. On to our discussion item for the evening, which is 5.1, a workshop to discuss amendments to the law municipal code section for signs. I am going to say I would greatly appreciate getting out of here in like half an hour max so i'm gonna hopefully keep us to that if that works for you all and i say that also with the mea culpa that i did not send you my comments by the requested time but i have some and i made them really really clear so i'm not gonna ram that's great that's not part of the email asking so i'm sorry i thought i was doing so good this week i apologize um

Right? I've got pretty directed questions. OK. Perfect. OK. So for our new folks, we are in the middle of a complete Code rewrite right now. Right now, we're talking about just the signed code section. Once we're done discussing this today, I will take your feedback. And then this is only going to come back once we do the big code package. So don't expect to see this as an individual item anytime soon. But I will be taking your feedback. The goals for the update for the sign code section or simplification, deleting codes that require me to, or any regulator to read the sign in order to put them in that category of what rules I'm gonna assign, and then just bring the sign code up with current practices. So most of what we're going to talk about today is just I have gone through and done the simplifying work. And now I have small sections that are fairly discretionary that are just a reflection of what we want our community to be. So I'm looking forward.

I so apologize. Our transcriber was asking, there's a couple numerical things on the CHP resolution. It's listed as number 14-2025 in the agenda. And then on the summary, it's listed as 13-2026. Which one is it? And then also 13-2025.

What is the correct number?

I wouldn't know. I imagine 13-2026.

I mean, I know they started this a long time ago, so it could have been 2025. Right? 13-2026. 13-2026. I think that is a minute error. We don't need to...

Okay. The recommended motion was for 13-20-25. So we approved 13-20-25. Yeah, I was going to say. Yeah, I'm okay not. securing it i think that is obviously a scrivener's error um okay sorry to interrupt you no i hadn't thought about it when i read it oh 25 shaley's fault definitely one shaley's error uh thanks johanna sorry no good thank you guys yeah

Good catch. Good catch Eve.

Okay, so we've got the height and size requirements for signs that are on property on the highway and off the highway. These are the established square footage and height requirements that we've had. So if there's any... changes that you'd like to see in the community these could be amended um i don't have any um recommendations on this it's just if you've heard out in the community that a change needs to be made this would be a great time to bring that up

Have you heard out in the community that change needs to be made?

I have heard a couple things, but I'll bring them up when relevant. Not on this particular criteria. Yeah.

Yeah, I haven't heard anything about a height issue.

That said, is this something that before it's proposed in final form that Citi was contemplating having some sort of public information workshop? open house thing on because that has been suggested to me by the chamber. I just spoke to someone from the chamber today who was interested in this item who thought it might be a particularly good one for that just because it will apply to so many businesses to have like an open house to invite members of the community to give feedback or say, here's how this applies to my property, just in more of an informal form, like we've done with public works. Yeah, obviously folks are welcome to, you know, speak with the planning department at any time or come to the commission meetings and citizens to be heard. But I think for this particular thing, it might be nice sort of to kind of the brain trust of existing businesses. And it sounds like the chamber's doing a great job of kind of asking their members, which is where I spoke to Cora Phelps on the phone today. And she had some great input from a couple businesses specifically who had some kind of things they wanted to discuss with the sign code. But they're excited that this is happening to clarify the requirements to make it make sense, like all the code changes.

So I would say like location on property should also.

Yeah, Corey, hello.

Thank you. Maybe I will stick around for this. It's a little back and back. Corey Shurtleff again, Community Development Director. So I might stick around just for this item for the discussion if that's acceptable. But on that particular instance, given that what the Planning Division has been tasked with as a part of the larger rewrite is this really is just a... really minor section amongst the much grander total. That being said, there are a few sections that do really have these discretionary planning variables and elements that are really should be a representation of what the community's character and identity type qualities are. So that's where as planning staff, we are gonna simplify and best practice amend the code. But with some of these is what does the community want so with that being said I think maybe in effect to not have other aspects of the code that are overlooked that oh you brought us sign code and maybe this other aspect but we never got a chance at this one I get a little nervous at you know kind of pinpointing in that way I might make a suggestion to staff that as we're going through the code we can maybe block this into categories that the short answer is the large code rewrite will be coming in its entirety to the full public process with much public input requested, but it will be so vast, I would be surprised if anyone in our community could really actually dive in and find these little tiny aspects. So what I'm hearing is maybe a suggestion, we, as we're going through this code, can bring and this in my opinion is a really palatable way to say hey community these are the pieces we're looking for feedback on highlighted it's very clear to me in the way that it's been done here we can gather up here are the code sections that generally affect the commercial entities here are those that generally affect development entities or single family construction the chamber would be really helpful putting it into the chamber and saying ask your members here's a survey through middle docs like So maybe as we're going through it versus saying sign code, we can maybe group it into a slightly bigger bucket that is here are customary regulations that usually are dealing with businesses or licensing. Same thing for other types of pockets so we can identify stakeholder groups. not to disqualify them from being able to comment across the board but give them a little better but the way this if this is working for you i think this representation is excellent to kind of hone you in on is 20 foot 21 foot 23 yeah that's it's really challenging and i love the idea of that obviously appeals to me we always we're sort of

Mostly the public, and this is always how this happens, right? You see things when it's so far along that the momentum to make some sort of change, even if it's a good one, is difficult. The momentum is going the other way. And so this sort of like early engagement thing, which we obviously try to get people to do all the time on everything. Yeah. limited success. This one in particular, I was really excited when CORE reached out and said that this is something the Chamber is following, that they're excited about it, and that they are proactively talking to their members about things that they would like to make sure are covered in this. So Huge. Awesome.

I will say the one other piece, and this is actually relating to a previous item tonight and some communication I was having, is it may be challenging for us as well to look towards the future of, okay, let's really dig into this. We're changing the code right now. I'll say the intent of this code, we've talked about this, Volume 1. It's always been that there's going to be multiple phases of this. is to secure the gaps and risks and liabilities within the code. Coming back, following the general plan update, once we do have a much broader renewed vision of the community, that will be much easier to say, oh, how should signs respond to that? So getting, you know, with the chamber, it may be, oh, we don't want 28, we want 40 foot signs here. that's a bit of a change while it may be where we're going. We may not have gone through what could be a full, more robust public process accompanied by the general plan. So that is what I'll say is let's do probably engage in this exercise, but maybe have kind of the asterisks of don't, you know, don't be disappointed if we don't really reimagine our branding of our community yet, because we're going to go through this general plan update that then we're it really does open up the board, whether it's sidewalks, fee and lose systems, infrastructure, that is really when that will all be unlocked. So we're excitedly getting close to that, but this is just meant to be fixing gaps. But since we got it open, if there was anything like, I think Joanna put, immediate pains in the community, let's fix the pains right now.

Cool.

Yeah.

All that to say, I don't have input on the hype.

We're going to, we're going to meet that 30 minutes. I do have two questions. Or comments, maybe they are. So you're talking about taking this to the chamber, which, of course, businesses have a valid concern with this. But I think we have to find that balance, too. Of course. Where we're not destroying this gorgeous landscape we have here or giving our citizens a bunch of signs to look at, lights on and stuff. So how do we get that citizen experience? how do we find that balance with citizen input? If we're going to ask for business input, what, you know, I think of Santa Fe all the time, they did a marvelous job of preserving their beautiful landscape and everything, but still, you know, giving businesses the visibility they need. Of course. So.

yeah ideas no i mean i think this this process is open every you can be a business you can be a citizen you can be someone that lives in your vehicle you all have equal say this room so do you envision do you envision

like an open house, quote unquote, that you said for the chamber?

Oh yeah, I know that one. I was just thinking they had, the chamber specifically was wondering if that might be a nice thing to do for this, just to be able to sort of cast a broader net to get proactive public input, not even necessarily aimed at business owners. That would be something that'd be open to everybody if, you know, those, as those open houses are where there's like a come look at what we're talking about on some, you know, easels and write a comment there. Right. Right. Right. Right.

So, but yeah. Do what Corey was saying about the two sections of our code rewrite. I've got a lot of sections to get to. We did just have a workshop with vendors and property owners that hold vendors. And that's because we're doing a code rewrite that's moving separately from the big code amendment. So we are dialing in our practice of community engagement. We are interested in doing that. At the first chunk code rewrite first phase, probably won't be doing that at this phase. restating this again, what I'm looking for today is just any glaring issues or things that are still confusing because I've taken one look and tried to make it more simple. But even with this heightened size, if a matrix would really do people good, I could do that. If an example, if we'd like to implement more examples in our code, we could do that. Or if you've heard something about 20 foot height, just really not cutting it. We're looking for things that are not going to be, when we do the big code rewrite, we're not looking to bring anything that's more controversial than five minutes of conversation on any item.

What are the big differences between on-highway and off-highway? I pretty much have a D. D is the difference.

It's 20 and 28 feet, right? Is the difference, right? Number one. One is 28 and the one on the one below is 20 foot. But do we have a... So on-highway means specifically 191 only? Okay.

That is one of my questions. Is that clear? Right. Okay. No, we should probably have that in the deck. I have a whole list. I will send you of definitions that are missing. okay of things that are that is a wonderful example of what we are doing on this go around i know you're already doing this this is the same definition i did my own thing and i actually i never use ai but i actually did use it for that because i was like this is a good use it can go through and tell me what there's a definition for and what there isn't um so it might not be 100 accurate but hopefully it's a good starting place um yeah Wonderful. That's one thing.

In our larger code rewrite, we're looking to take most of the definitions that live in separate sections and putting them all in one big, large definition section. So I'm sure that the definitions that you've provided are going to benefit other sections of our code with clarification as well. So thank you so much.

But yeah, highway needing a definition was one thing that I had caught as well.

So, John, is this your exhibit to the Clean Sign Code update draft? Is that what this is?

This is just a PowerPoint. Would you send that? Yeah, so she makes a great point. I actually just emailed you this. Do we have access to your presentation as well as the agenda before the meeting?

Yes.

They're quite a bit different than everything else we get. And yours is so helpful. It is very helpful. It would be really helpful. Great. If we could have your presentation, even one day before.

Okay. It doesn't have to be way early, like the agenda. If we can maybe tell by the amount of typos that slip through, I do make these usually day up. But I can absolutely. I would take a couple hours. I can absolutely do a day or two ahead. I try to make them as similar as possible, but absolutely not at all.

Thank you.

I think attachment C in the packet should be consistent with what you're seeing on the screen. Yes. So if you scroll down, it should have what it is that we're seeing here, highlighted sections through the ordinance.

Yeah, it's just not quite as pretty.

Yeah, that's true. And broken out.

Yeah.

Next. Yes. OK, wonderful. I've got lighting. That was my next question. Yes. So in our previous meeting, we've gone through more lighting than this. These are just the still sticklers. So if you have any questions after reading the lighting code, we can absolutely go through those. But I don't want to give the impression that I'm glossing over most of it. It's just. We just did that one. So there was a kind of confusing visual or lackluster visual in the code right now. So we've prepared a new one, which shows three correct versions of lighting of a sign and one incorrect version. We do, we have this, this light needs to be within two feet of the top of the sign yeah um i think that's was put forward by people who know a lot about lights and it just gets harder and harder to avoid that last image if you get higher and higher. But if there was some extraordinary reason that we can see that the community is calling for taller lights, we could raise that. Also, we have right now no more than four individual fixtures. I imagine a world in which we have a 30 foot long sign by one foot and somebody wants to put a bunch of little tiny lights. So I'm wondering what thoughts would be on, on just limiting the lumen count and not limiting number of lamps. or more sense to me okay right and then we have 40,000 right now love to open that up to discussion I've got some baselines in our head of 40,000 it's quite a lot yeah well it feels like a lot I mean 20,000 for a parking lot I don't feel like it's necessarily a great comparison only because parking lots are not necessarily trying to read

something you're just trying to be well lit enough for safety whereas like if you're trying to see a sign and maybe even safely driving and jotting down a phone number which could potentially be the purpose of someone wanting to light their sign it's like it should in my head be a little bit brighter than finding a parking lot

found the calculation for the parking lot light to be 20,000. Like think of your stereotypical, like you're at city market, you've got one of those really big ones and you know how it luminates the entire area. That's 20,000 in one light. So imagine like two of those, but just beaming directly on a surface. That's kind of bright. So we were trying to use that as an analogy to kind of express what, how much more 40,000 lumens would be like, imagine like, being very close to that light, for example, if that helps.

So if I can, with the Moab Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, which is complex, and I think lighting physics becomes infinitely more complex, when we were going through that process for a certification IDA for dark sky, we actually, with signage, made a particular effort with their review association that our criteria was actually meant to require NITS readings. of a sign, which is to say the reflective capacity coming off the sign, not even what the lumens were. So if you were to say, even if it was all we'll call directly illuminated downward, the reflective capacity actually does create a glow. And we've seen that with some of our signs in town that massive amounts of lighting, even if it's down, is hitting a sign and it's actually now refracting up and it's actually contradictory to the intent. So to the point of limiting lumens to what would be reasonable amount to accomplish what its intent is to illuminate the sign for legibility, whatever it is, that is a lot. That is a lot. But I think navigating it is wise. In addition, I think what we're seeing here, I'll work with this team because I do have kind of a particular past and history working with some of these images, this could actually throw off the way direct illumination works given that we're just seeing a lamp shielding here. We don't know what the interior illumination fixture is, which actually affects the geometry of how that light is thrown. So if this were imagining our shield here, sorry, we're going to move past this, but if When we see these, we have them in Main Street. Some are recessed bulbs and those recessed bulbs do sit horizontally. So that's actually being shielded correctly. But if you look at some of these, The horizontal plane of that shielding, that is actually a trajectory. So I'd say all of these are actually non-compliant shields, unless we knew what was going on interior of the fixture. So we'll work with the imaging. I think the intent, though, is not to get cut on those semantics, is how high can it go and at what angles can we illuminate. Yeah.

I was going to say that light is defying physics a little bit.

We'll work with team, I think, with that to show light spill, low intensity cone and high intensity cone to kind of demonstrate the physics of that work.

But yeah, just kind of to give the idea of the height and how if you have a certain amount of height, like the image all the way on the right, it's going to have spillover that's not completely directed at the sign. So that's just what those images are trying to emphasize.

There's a couple of those examples out in town where they were trying to do it, but then you're driving on the opposite side of the sign and it's trying to shake your face above the sign. But we've had those that are lower.

As silly as this is, can we just put in?

the code, no spillage.

Yeah.

No, not, I'll say we probably can't because spill will happen. Spillage though is better. yeah light spill is we're using as a technical term but I think there's more bigger fish to fry here yes I think I'll work with team with Molo to ensure I think the big thing is here we were forcing people to put their lamps in the middle of their sign blocking the actual messaging right that's what we're trying to get away from and say okay you can see the whole sign but not a lot of spill other things I think we can do that

So where did the number four come from? Why was that put in there? And then where did 40,000 lumens come from if that's such a huge amount of light? I think they're just giving us the examples to understand.

Oh, okay. Those aren't in the code.

Okay. This is, I understand. Okay.

Yes.

This is just a fictional instance.

Okay. The bullet point three is in the code currently. The raw bullet point of 40,000 lumens is equivalent to 50. That's an example.

Oh, okay. Yeah.

Okay, I've got one, prohibited signs. So we've talked some about parked vehicle signs, signs in the public right of way, signs attached to public property. I think I know where we stand on those. What I'd love to talk in the next three minutes about is feather type signs, sandwich board signs, and balloon signs. So overall in the code rewrite, we are trying to get away from HOA standards that aren't really important to our community. So if these are, if not allowing these signs remain important to our community, let's keep them. If not, we got to maybe circle back to this on our second round.

uh this is was basically the balance of my discussion with the chamber representative today was um flagging flagging uh unintended um not intended sorry i'm tired you guys i have a one-year-old um we are uh with the concern about feather signs not being permitted um specifically the and there's businesses all over town i know that that would prefer to utilize these um the the businesses that are sort of set back on center street right behind the spoke so like state farm and serendipity and crystals cakes and cones i think is like they're um different now crystal's cool is it is that they did is it serendipity yeah what is it sweet serendipity i think okay i apologize i'm not up with I avoid downtown sometimes. I'm going through one of those phases. Worked every day. Sort of being a little difficult to draw business back there and the same sort of issue with the places on 100 South on the other side of Maine, where the bookstore was that only lasted like six months, unfortunately. And, you know, just that kind of those little kind of off Maine and the quiet side, but still within a block of Maine businesses that sandwich boards or that flagged feather signs are helpful potentially for those businesses to like you know when there's a line around the corner from the spoke that basically extends to the other ice cream place but people don't know the other ice cream places there was sort of a example given just trying to figure out some other way for those businesses who maybe don't have that as visible frontage nor a place to put a permanent sign on the property that draws people in to sort of figure something out.

So I'm hearing, is that included, that's off-premises signs?

That would be on-premises.

On-premises.

On-premises, but temporary. Okay. Yeah, like something they would probably take in and out at night. Sandwich board, feather type. Sandwich board, feather type.

Or were you thinking like at the corner with an arrow saying... No, that would definitely be something different.

That's on someone else's property. That's a whole other thing altogether. This would literally be like, there's some businesses where it's just not as apparent where you're driving or they're set back far enough from the thoroughfare that you like, yeah, if you're standing, for example, like if you're standing at Wells Fargo, And looking west, you don't see those businesses, even though it's like half a block down, just kind of because of how it's set or whatever. So just the Chamber's perspective was that it would be really nice to have something that wasn't like the temporary signs you need to get a 30-day permit for, you know, that kind of thing, during business hours to advertise. Yeah. My thought was, I know we've discussed the feather signs before as being particularly kind of egregious as both an eyesore, a safety hazard, both for their ability to be a projectile if there's strong winds, and then also just visibility concerns with those sort of and a blocking everything um that that that maybe was a harder sell to allow those but that sandwich boards are a little bit more keeping in the character and less of a safety concern and maybe there was some something that could be figured out i don't know i just said i would bring it to the discussion so yeah i mean i i am kind of in line with this of like the feather type signs and things that are kind of loud and obnoxious take me to like

the car dealership like it totally takes away the character of trying to kind of keep like an old town yeah main street feel but like you can do a pretty classy sandwich board sign yeah um so like i feel like that could could keep with the feel of our downtown and give them a and maybe it's not allowed but uh one of one of my tenants on center street uses a sandwich order to let you know them know that their people know and so um so i'm sorry i just got someone in trouble um no there's there's tons of businesses i was like i don't know if that was a sign issue or a code issue so i've just but i i think the feather type signs do kind of get to the point of feeling like you're in a used car so yeah yeah very metropolis feeling it will lose some of

our historical film for sake of time yeah in that same vein balloon signs can you give an example what do you mean like the big blow up like you know the dinosaurs when when any number of the dinos inflatable dinosaurs when they called me and asked me if they needed a sign permit i said what's a dinosaur doing what's they what are they wearing What are they wearing? What's on the dinosaur? Because if there was the company name on the dinosaur, I would consider that to be a sign. So nobody's done that yet. They're playing dinosaurs, having fun. Wait, where's their dinosaurs? Like at the rock shop.

Well, there's some on multiple.

It's a town I don't go to very much right now. On rooftops, mostly. So these are inflatables. Yes, inflatables. Because I was thinking balloon signs.

Come work for the playing department. What's your dinosaur wearing? Laughter words on it um but that's it because we transition which is this argument the we had the whole ice cream sign yeah last time it's the same idea is it art is it not yeah is it sign is it art and so if it's just an inflatable that is go for it i guess yeah we don't have anything prohibiting that but the minute it becomes advertising or direct directional

to say you took a picture of it you can tell where it is or it's just oh you took a picture that's some dinosaur somewhere but it's a little hard like depending on like size and location on the property of like is there visibility issues like right you know like yeah see around the corner yeah

yeah if um if the balloon was considered a sign it would have to meet all the tight requirements clear view right requirement of any other sign and then i wouldn't allow it if it didn't meet all those criteria if it's not a sign then there's no requirements yeah

So I don't love the word balloon. I would immediately change it to inflatable.

Yeah.

I think so too.

Because balloon gets really confusing. I think of like a baby shower balloon arch.

Historically, I think that's what this was. Oh, okay. And used historically.

But internet, it's a balloon.

Yeah. But in the midst of lack of code, I think the intent is still there. It's an inflatable time situation.

There'll be a definition for whatever it is.

Yeah. So with that, I think we can say we're... Honing in, is that eh or eh?

I think it just needs to have some... If it has some guidance. I'm not saying no to it. It'd be more like... yeah okay so other signs a little not so much but to me like i don't care what it's wearing or what the words say like if it's advertised or not to me it's more about all the other things i just love that different regulations for dancing men is something that is written on a slide at the planning commission um

I will say I do have something that I think if we are allowing balloon signs inflatables in any respect and maybe this is not the place for it. I think we need to have really clear requirements about securing those.

So this is it. If we're permitting it, we are opening up probably an extensive chapter on how to regulate them. This is where in the past it's been the regulations become too onerous and capacity driven for staff. We literally can't effectively regulate them. Therefore, prohibiting them is probably more.

So either prohibiting them or free reign.

We get to places that it's wide open or closed. Regulating the middle becomes a capacity issue. The council will have to grapple with this. What do you want Johanna doing? Do you want her reviewing infrastructure or what dancing dinosaurs are wearing? So that is a real question of we have two staff people. What do you want them to spend their time on? It's a legitimate. But to try to move it along. I heard there, but sandwich boards, I think where we're going with this is very similar, just note for staff, with vendors, what we saw is that the community is naturally doing stuff, even if it's not permitted. Let's analyze, okay, within reason, What should be allowed. And so that is to say sandwich boards encroaching in the public right of way is done in many, many places. So this is one where I'd say we should allow it through regulations of where and when and how they're modified versus saying no. I think that's a concession, which is why I'm saying now we can go back to balloons. Sandwich boards I think is a good way to say yes, that's worthwhile.

The inflatables are really difficult because for me it really I think it's a safety. You see like videos of like bounce houses getting lifted up in a wind, which is less than the wind we have here on a regular basis in the spring. And hitting the front of a semi coming down 191 or like some crazy thing.

Absolutely.

And I really would be concerned. that we would, like you said, need to get into really minute, like it needed to be lashed to a cemented structure or something like that. Well, and then you have like some, like let's say there's one inside of a side-by-side.

Does that count as something you would regulate? Or is that like it's in a side-by-side on their property? Yeah, all good questions. Because that feels like then we don't necessarily have a right to say you can't have it on your side.

And then inspections. Barry is going out there to check the straps on Mr. Dinosaur. And then they have regular inspections. Is this something that our community is really desperately calling for that we need? And if it isn't, it may be a capacity limitation.

I feel the same way regarding the feather type sign is that it takes away from what we're trying to create.

And what the Moabit feels like. No, that shards, unfortunately.

Yeah, I think momentum based on just prior years of discussion about sign stuff was that like the feather signs are something that we really don't like.

think should be something that that are allowed um the way it is in the code now is we allow them in a very limited context which is supply apparatus trucks so what you're saying too is the chamber saying well there are some businesses that need a little extra help yep okay let's look into that that that could be something we do totally but yeah but in that especially unfortunately in the downtown and immediate area corridor i do think that is one of those areas where

That could get really messy really quick.

The city getting on board with maybe like the passport program that the chamber is working on and being really supportive of that can help with maybe some of that visibility where everybody looks at their phone.

I think sandwich boards are awesome because if you're standing in line for the one ice cream place and you look down and you say, oh, it's ice cream. I think that's helpful too, for sure.

Wonderful. For sandwich board signs, are there any big, obvious limitations, other than needing to allow for five feet of passage, if they're placed on the sidewalk, anything?

I really do think they need to be secured in some way. I think we've had that issue. Yeah.

with them literally getting blown yeah I just think they need to be secured attached to a sandbag yeah yeah if there's a but yeah they do they get blown away like hitting cars I would agree

and i do think that could be i do think that i hate vague code but i do think that could be uh intentionally vague um where it could be like maybe some people have like a post they can attach to some people have a bike rack some people have a sandbags they need to use but just saying it needs to be secured so it cannot can't blow away there you go keep it simple that's the reason yeah Because I think that does alleviate most of the safety concern too. As long as there's enough passage.

It does become not a regulatory action on the upfront. We're trusting you to go secure it appropriately. If it flies into somebody, they can sue you and we'll send you a violation for not following the code.

Because then we're not getting sued. Because we said you got to secure it.

It says it right in the code.

and hopefully people follow that and no one's getting sued but um yeah and then i think hours of just during hours of operation up to like we have for other things whatever we end up deciding is like a reasonable time prior to opening too that would make sense someone's putting their sandwich board out before they open their doors we wouldn't want to have it be like

during so with the five feet i might also add so the five feet is coming from ada access when you ensure the sidewalk has ada access throughout where we've seen i think telluride has something along this it's encroached in the right of way but there's kind of i don't know if it's formalized or just everyone is like we're all on board together is they all have them uniformly aligned in the right of way so the line alignment of five feet is consistent what we see is people are on the exterior some people on the interior It's all over the place. So you're having to dodge. So I think we would have, I think, a regulation that if you're encroaching, it must be at this location within there to maintain the five feet and on a particular side.

I like that. Uniform. Wonderful. Those are the questions that I had burning off you.

Thank you, Johanna. Will you send the slides this time? Because I would just like to review them. Yeah. Thank you.

They are also on YouTube. You can go back and watch the conversation and fly through.

That's true.

So if you want.

Yeah, that's what I do. Too much trouble.

Not at all. Okay. That's great. Awesome. Thank you. Corey, thank you for your input as well. No, you might be needed for future agenda items. Okay. All right. Finally, future agenda items. Johanna, thank you for leading that discussion. And Caitlin, thank you for all your work.

So next meeting, we have the vendor code kit. Four recommendations.

Oh.

Yes. Terrifying. We have a DA, AMASA DA.

Development agreement.

Development agreement phase two. Okay. And then we have a landscaping exception. And then we have a workshop on fee-in-lieu changes for sidewalks.

We don't get these very often in here. Wow. Okay.

Was that? Sounds like a joke.

It's just a discussion. Yeah. Discussion as we're kind of going through all the little code things. So you guys just, just. All right. Okay.

I think you can recognize the back of my shirt by now. This Fee and Loo is as we're looking at larger expansions of the highway corridor. So the Fee and Loo that we have right now is extremely limited. The additional amendments were made are what I would call further concessions that are waivers of that fee in lieu. So what we still have in the code is a huge gap of commercial or any other properties that aren't single family residences that should be allowed to have access to that fee in lieu. So some say a business came in. I think the previous property tonight is a business, but they retained a residential aspect of it. So we made the interpretation they should have gotten access to that fee in lieu, but there might be a person right next door that doesn't even get that option to get the fee-in-lieu. They must construct. So what we're looking at now is to fill that gap to allow fee-in-lieu in the appropriate context. But I will say with CHP or any other properties that are going through this, the fee-in-lieu that we're constructing is something that doesn't exist. So it's not changing. It wouldn't change CHP's discussion tonight. So it's not like, what are you, are you, you know, he missed the boat by one meeting? No, that's not the case. And furthermore, it will be, in my opinion, a more formal exaction that it doesn't have a linear foot max. because we are looking at large commercial properties, it is a direct fee in lieu. Literally, here's how much it would cost you the whole thing. That's how much you're paying. What the applicant earlier tonight is paying fee in lieu is a fraction of what it would actually take to do the entirety of his property. So I don't want anybody in the community to feel like they're missing the boat or we're working things in the back. No, because it's come up before. So I do appreciate the opportunity to actually say, we're trying to close some holes in the code and you guys will get full, you know, full agenda item but it's um yeah gonna relate to as we're looking at expanded areas where there aren't sidewalks at all but there ought to be that's gonna be the next big discussion so not so much where there are no sidewalks and there maybe aren't maybe that's a good way to say it those are the questions we've had there's you know we're requiring sidewalks where maybe there shouldn't be this is

there's no code for places that there definitely should be sidewalks so that's um definitely our feelings in the community okay awesome thank you uh thank you everyone that was a full meeting so thank you and welcome again to our new staff and our new planning commissioners thank you thank you thank you yep um i will adjourn this meeting at 8 02 p.m have a good night everybody thank you