Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, we are recording. Wonderful. Okay, we're all set.

All right, then I will go ahead and call to order this meeting of the Moab Planning Commission, a regular meeting at 6:07 according to my watch. Um, and our first uh I don't know who is in there cuz you all are about this big. So, I'm in attendance. Jill Tatton, Carolyn Connor is here via Zoom. We are via Zoom. if maybe Corey or Joahana, maybe you could tell us who's here in in chambers.

Yes, I would love to. So, um from the commission and chambers, we have Mile Loftton, we have Shaye Bryant. Uh and then we also have uh from staff Kelsey Garcia, Johanna Blanco, and Corey Shiriff. And then in the audience, we have another staff person, Alexi Lamb, presenting on one of the items tonight. We have no citizens in the audience. Uh and I also do not believe we had any citizens to be heard submitted um correct nor public testimony submitted for either of the public hearings that we had.

Well, that's perfect. Then that leaves us that moves us forward to item number three on our agenda, which is approval of the minutes for the July 10th meeting that we had. Has everybody had a chance to look over the minutes? And if you um don't see any errors, we'll take a motion. Um if you would so like to approve those minutes. I'll go ahead to a motion to uh approve the minutes from the July 10th, 2025 regular planning commission meeting. Thank you, Miles. Anybody second?

I'll second. All right. Thank you, Carolyn. So, we have a um motion to approve the minutes of the July 10th meeting and a second by Carolyn. Any discussion? All right, let's take a vote. Uh I mean approval. Everybody say I I guess round robin. What do you want to do since two of us are out here in Zoom land? Yeah, I think for that we can do a roll call. I think is appropriate in this instance. Um, and so Jill, you can facilitate that or we can, but I think if you wanted to do the roll call. All right. So, we'll take a roll call. Uh, Carolyn. Hi. Miles.

Hi. I can't I don't I'm so sorry, but I It's fine. Shaylee. I Yeah. Okay. And what was your name again? Shaye. Shaye. Okay. Perfect. And how do you vote? Shaylee I.

Okay, I say I. So that is 1 2 3 4 to zero. And there we go. Let's move on to the next item. In favor of approving our minutes. Thank you. Um All right. So our next item on the agenda is 4.1 consideration and possible approval of the planning resolution 2025-12. Planning resolution approving the landscape special exception request for property at 1581 Mil Creek Drive, Moab, Utah. All right. So, I don't know who has it. Is it Johanna or Corey? So, why don't you guys go ahead and take over and tell us where how we're moving forward. Thank you.

Got so many things on my screen. We didn't have an applicant right now, right? Yes. Oh. Hello, Mr. Williams. Um, we'll ask you to remain muted uh till the commission invites you to speak, but we're now moved on to your um your application right now.

And Jake, while Johan's pulling this up, we have Jesse in the waiting room. Is he part of your team as well? I think I'm seeing a nod.

Yep. Awesome. Okay, we we'll bring Jesse in as well. Good thought. Okay, welcome Jesse. Okay, we have a discretionary action for you all tonight. We got a landscaping special exception. This exception is for 1581 Mil Creek Drive. It's in the C4 zone and our applicant is Jake Williams. The applicant submitted materials and it was deemed complete August 5th. The project is going to be a phased multi-family development and the code that they are seeking an exception for is MMC 1727070. Special provisions. A strip of land at least 15 ft in width adjacent to all public streets shall be landscaped in accordance with provisions located in chapter 17.10, 10 which is our landscaping code chapter. Um here is their landscaping plan their proposed plan. um where 10 ft of the required landscape strip is on the property's frontage just as required but then the rest of that 15 ft the 5t is

landscaped in the city's right of way instead of on their frontage. So this is their proposal. This is the narrative submitted by the applicant. Um I will not read this aloud. Um unless you all would like to read. Okay. Uh the cooperative 1581 has been designed with an average landscape buffer of over 10 ft along the frontage. Our site sits on over 150 ft from the improved ride ofway along most of the entirety of the frontage. For this reason, we felt like it made a for a better pedestrian experience to take the 5-ft reduction out of our buffer and add it to the park strip that runs next to Mil Creek Drive. Um, this park strip is not required from the Moab engineers, but it absolutely improves the pedestrian experience by keeping foot and bike traffic further away from auto traffic. With a few hundred apartment homes planned for this area in the next few years, this proposed right-of-way improvement is sure to become a welltraedicked route to get from the bus stop and the university campus. We firmly believe that the overall intent of the landscape buffer code by moving the landscaping to Mil Creek Drive. This exception will help improve the overall project by keeping the footprint of new buildings outside of the existing topographic depressions as much as possible which will help keep the project cost down afford and affordability high. Lastly, it makes for

a more dynamic and sustainable community in the long run. Okay. So, this is uh planning's analysis of their request. Um, so this code section that they're seeking an exception from is not actually in the landscaping chapter of the code, which most of our landscape exceptions are. Um but it does reference adherence to the landscaping um code and is about landscaping. Um it is also about a buffer um but it is not it's again not part of the buffer section of the landscaping code. So it's not eligible for that special buffer exception. Uh so then it must be considered under the general landscape exception uh which is listed out here. Um we're fairly familiar with those. So now if anybody has any questions for um the planning department or for the applicant commission can do that. Thank you. So just for context, is this market rate uh like multif family housing or is this like specifically student housing? Are they expecting a lot of traffic up towards the university? like what's explain

what should we invite maybe the applicant can speak to that because I think there is a Jacob can you unmute or have I permanently muted you it looks like I oh no there we go how about now that sounds good

um yeah So, this is uh an affordable housing project. So, we have already uh been awarded federal tax credits and state tax credits for the development of these units. So, they'll stay affordable long-term at an average of 60% of the area median income. We don't plan on having any students. Well, you can't with the tax credit program can't have students. However, there's a project right next door to us that we believe will also use that is a market rate project uh that we will that we believe will use this uh walkway as well. So, that's part of the thought process. Uh the site if you've driven by it's got a lot of topography and so we're trying to keep we're kind of right on the edge of where the footings and foundations would be sort of pushed out into the like out into where it's already dropped off which then increases our cost pretty substantially. So every foot additional uh kind of kind of hurts us that way. And we felt like the city um Johanna and Cory have been great to kind of give us an idea of like well maybe it makes sense to move that along and create a part strip there to make a better walkway um along that sidewalk that's kind of it's not really attached to our property but we were going to make the sidewalk improvement. And so we felt like that was hopefully a good compromise um to be able to do that and still kind of meet the intent of creating a better pedestrian experience overall for the overall project. And so that was that was kind of the idea. But if we if we ended up having to move it to the full 15 feet, we really kind of push in then we end up having to bring in more filter. And you understand how that kind of ripples uh negatively down down the hill literally I guess. Um but we're excited for the project. Um Johanna and her team have been amazing to work with and um have been working on it behind the scenes for for well over a year now to kind of get us to this point where all of our financing is pretty well lined up and this is one of the last hurdles we've got to get through to

be able to hopefully move forward and and our hope and goal is to break ground before the end of the year. So that's um what we're pushing for. Jake, how long is the um our strip going to extend along Mil Creek Drive where it gets kind of cut off by the site plan here?

So, it goes all the way to the corner. So, we'll be uh either tying into the ex Yeah, it sounds like we'll be tying into the existing ramp. We just verified that there is an existing um ramp at the corner. So, we'll be tying into the crosswalk and all the way to the corner. And I think he actually on the site plan, it's kind of funky. I think there's like a little window up in the right side of that site. Um,

oh, it's not pulled up anymore. But, um, that shows kind of the the connection all the way down. Oh, maybe not because she took a screen snap of it, but it does go all the way to the corner. Yes, good question. We're happy to answer any other questions that you have.

I mean, it certainly seems pretty straightforward and I don't hate the idea of you guys making an investment to improve that section of rightaway there. There's likely to be pedestrian traffic there. So, you're still you're still at some like you're still building 15 feet of buffer between you and the street at some point. There's just a separation in the middle of it, so it doesn't seem like a big stretch. It seems pretty straightforward. Thank you. And I don't I'm seeing Johanna is muted, so I don't know if you keep trying to take back over, but that might be

Oh, yeah. is I'm my personal computer is muted because I'm using the Oh, gotcha. Gotcha. Sorry. Sorry. Otherwise, we get feedback. That makes sense. That makes sense.

Yeah, it looks straightforward to me. Um I see that in our packet, we do have um uh let's see, where did I find it? Okay. Uh recommendations. So, there is a motion to follow along as you know, we continue our discussion. So, um I think since you've been working with Johanna, um yeah, I I appreciate the thoroughess of all of this. Thank you. Shaye, did you have a question? This is just above the nursery. [Music] I'm picturing

Yeah, Jacob mentioned there's a actually a housing development that's immediately above the nursery. This is the section. Yeah, this is perfect. there's that uh block of property between this and the nursery, but generally speaking, yeah, that's the location.

Yeah, I think this is a creative solution. Um like Miles said, there's still plenty of space between the property and the road and um it kind of seems like the best of both worlds to have the total required landscaped buffer, but just split across those two sections. they'll have it adjacent to the parking and the property itself and then also for that pedestrian rideway which will be very nice. Um I don't know if anything shady is going to go in that section but it's definitely a a hot place to walk. So now there are some trees so we'll see if we can keep them alive but yes escape plan. Yeah, there are some trees. It's already a pretty wide road so it does give a little bit extra space for that.

Right. Well, I mean, Caroline summed it up for me, so I'm happy to make a motion if everybody's feeling pretty good about it. All right. Thank you, Miles. Uh, I'll go ahead and move that the city of Moab Planning Commission approve planning resolution 2025-12, a planning resolution approving the landscaping special exemption request for property at 1581 Mil Creek Drive, Moab, Utah 84532. All right, we have a positive motion on the table. Do we have anybody to second this by Miles Loftton? I will second.

Who was that? I'm sorry. Okay, Shaylee, we have it. I'm sorry. Like, you know, it's so hard to be on Zoom. I I apologize. Um Shaylee has um me when you see me, Jill, we've met. I know. I'm like, Shaye, where are you? Everybody's just like this big. So, we have a second by Shaye. Any further discussion? No, I see them

creating 15 ft of space between the edge of their use area and the street and they're being creative about it and honestly making the sidewalk that they're having to install anyways nicer. So, it seems like a win to me. Right. Right. Seems like a win to me. So, all right, let's go ahead and take a roll call. Um, Shaylee I, Miles, I, Carolyn, I, and myself, I vote I, and that's passes four to zero. All right. Thank you so much. Thanks, Ra.

Thank you so much. All right, we will move along in our agenda. We have 5.1 consideration and possible recommendation for Moab ordinance 2025-13 an ordin ordinance amending the Moab municipal code MMC section 17.09 to include additional regulations required for electric vehicle readiness of multi- household development. So there are some items in our packet. I don't know who's taking the lead on this. Is this Hey, it's Alexi.

Well, I thought it was. Okay. Again, you're this big. In the back of my head. In the back of your head. And I knew it was you. I'm like, "Oh, Alexi." Okay. Take it away, Alexi.

All right. Uh since it's a public hearing, um I'm going to summarize what we've done so far, including some things that have been in front of uh the planning commission before, how we got here, and then I'll go to the ordinance text. Okay. Um starting with the timeline, uh discussions on this first started in March of 2024. MOAB began working with Utah Clean Energy uh because as we'll get to this was supporting some of the goals that came out of city council. Uh this has come before planning commission twice for discussion, twice for a workshop. We've had it reviewed by the city attorney a couple times as well. And we also invited community members um who have connections to real estate, construction, EVs to participate today in the public hearing. And today we are doing that public hearing. Okay. Uh you've seen this a few times now, but we're going to go ahead and recap because it's a public hearing. Um all right. So the city council adopted a couple resolutions. Uh 13-20 2017 and 38-209. Uh that do two things. uh set a goal to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2040 and to have 100% renewable electricity by 2030. And together those two things make a lot of sense with electric vehicles uh because a little less than a third of the emissions from the city are from transportation s sources and it it could actually be higher. This is estimated from the total county greenhouse gas inventory, which is the closest geographic area we have for us. Um, meaning that a lot of our emissions are coming from transportation. If we want to do an 80% reduction, somehow we're going to have to also reduce transportation. And if people are

driving electric vehicles and they're plugging them into the electrical grid, as that becomes cleaner and renewable, then the emissions from those vehicles will also reduce. Oops. All right. Uh, this is a kind of a summary of the different types of vehicles that we could be talking about. The two that would benefit from electric vehicle charging or electric vehicle readiness are battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. and they use or emit somewhere between half and a third of the emissions of an internal combustion engine or a traditional engine that would run off gasoline. So just by having a plug-in hybrid or a battery electric vehicle today on the Utah grid, they're overall reducing emissions uh as compared to a gasoline vehicle. And as more of the grid in Moab becomes renewable, the emissions annually emitted from these cars will also continue to decline. Uh the cost of EVs is currently on average higher than a gas powered vehicle, but it's going down. They could be depending on you know the political environment and other types of technologies be approximately the same by 2029. And even now uh the life cycle cost is very similar. They're in the same ballpark for gasoline and electric vehicles because the gasoline becomes an a savings over time and maintenance uh is different between the two types of vehicles. So they can over the life cycle of the vehicle uh be less expensive to own and uh most people if they own these vehicles would charge at home. Uh

according to the department of energy about 80% of charging happens at home and in Moab we also see that people are living in homes that they uh don't necessarily have a lot of control over if they're renters. So over 40% of people might live in a place where they have limited control over their parking or their charging. Uh okay. So this is stepping back a little bit to talk about the levels of readiness and then I'm going to do a brief outline of what we're going to see and then we'll just pull up the text. So what we're describing with EV readiness or EV charging preparation is three levels. uh going from EV capable which is installing electrical panel capacity and conduit. Uh so eventually you could uh install uh some uh like a circuit to connect in an outlet and put in an actual EV charger and then EV ready goes beyond that and we also have the same things but it's effectively an outlet for an EV charger. Uh and then beyond that we have EV installed which is actually having a charger in the ground or on a wall that somebody could use to charge. So those are the terminologies that we're going to see in the ordinance. Uh using that terminology, what we can see is that the difference between installing something during a new construction and installing it as a retrofit after the fact is a big cost savings even at the EV capable um which is the lowest level of EV readiness that it could save thousands of dollars in getting the capacity to charge an electric vehicle by preparing on the front end for it to be ready there because it would save costs on potentially trenching and running other things, upgrading your electrical, those

sorts of costs that would be more expensive after the fact. So, outlining the ordinance, uh, the first section will be general provisions. This is telling us why this ordinance exists and where it applies. In this case, it's to multi household dwellings. There are some definitions. We won't go through all of those, but I'll be happy to answer questions. if anybody has them. Uh then we'll get into the the real meat of this which is a general standards and what we have in there is uh multi household dwellings have would be required to have 10% EV capable and 10% EV ready parking and then there's an incentive for single and two household uh dwellings. After that, we start getting into other things that the code would require. Um, ADA, fire safety, maintenance, those sorts of things. Specific capacities, uh, which would be like electrical requirements. The review procedures and enforcement are, uh, similar to things you've seen before. So, I'm going to switch over to the ordinance. All right. It's hard to see highlighting on here, but I did a little bit to sort of direct where I'm talking. Uh, the intent of this essentially goes back to what I just presented that it's to have cleaner air, better health, low emission transportation, um, and reducing retrofit costs and essentially supporting the resolutions that the city council passed for emission reductions. This would apply where parking is required and but there are exemptions and exceptions what will come in at the end uh through the review procedures if people have uh an unusual circumstance or something that they think is exceptional.

Okay, definitions. We hit the really important ones. EV capable, EV ready. If as I'm going you have questions about definitions, we can come back to these. All right. Uh EV parking general standards uh for a multi household. This is where we hit those two 10% 10% EV capable and then 10% EV ready for a total of 20% of required parking. Uh if a place has fewer than 10 parking spaces, then they would provide one. Um so they wouldn't have to hit the full 20% there. And then uh these parking spaces would count towards minimum required parking by a city code. And if you exceed the level of readiness that we require in code, then it would still count towards the another level. So if you installed more EV ready stalls, then they could count for your EV capable. If you wanted to install only EV chargers, um, then it could count for your EV capable, EV ready. Okay, so that's the requirements for the multi household dwellings. And then single household includes an incentive um on permitting cost that if you were submitting under some other change that you wanted to make that was electrical, you could also evaluate or have your permit reviewed for EV parking without additional cost. getting into other requirements. For the most part, these uh refer to state code for ADA. Um so if you needed ADA, it would be proportionate in your EV parking the same way it would be in the rest of your parking. Fire and safety. Again, it's referring to state codes, but essentially it's asking um it's not

asking, it is requiring that these uh meet ADA and fire safety standards and have an emergency disconnect in case there was some sort of fire that uh and electricity need to be cut off. It also requires that people would post whoever the maintenance provider is, so somebody would be able to be contacted if there was a malfunction. And then going into the capacity requirements, uh we discussed what EV capable is. A lot of this is going into finer detail about what that means as far as distances. Um in this case, it's terminating within six feet of the EV capable parking space. Uh and then it also goes into the electrical requirements for that. Uh it's very similar between EV capable and then going into EV ready. aside from EV ready is a step further than EV capable. And then for EV installed, we have some added language in here for if somebody wanted to use load management of some sort um which would reduce the overall electrical panel requirements. And then uh also if somebody wanted to put in a fast charger that it would count for up to three level two chargers because it could service more vehicles faster. Okay, going on to the review procedures. Uh this is very similar to the landscape code that has come through here. Uh the zoning administrator would evaluate the application and from there uh they would get a call from whoever the zoning administrator would be there. uh things that are already ex in existence like parking lots, multif family dwellings that are already built would be considered legal non-conforming and would come into this at a later time if they decided

that they wanted to do uh some sort of parking or electrical change. So 50% or more to change non-exempt parking area. uh modifying substantially 10 parking spaces uh such as major resurfacing, reconstruction, trenching for utilities, things like that um would send somebody into looking at this code. And then if there are fewer than 10 parking spaces being affected, then only the new state spaces would need to come into compliance. Um or Uh then electrical upgrades would also trigger compliance specifically with the electrical piece of this. So if you changed something about your electrical service, it would not force you to trench and install conduit. It would just make the electrical panel come up. So it again, it's kind of coming into greater compliance. If later on they wanted to do it, then they would be ready on the electrical side. uh short-term parking 30 minutes or less uh would not be included in this. And then if somebody had some sort of exceptional circumstances, then they could go through the exception procedures. Uh we looked at this uh something very similar for landscaping uh in the prior agenda item. So submitting under the standard that they would like an exception, justification, uh alternate criteria, documentation for those things and if there were any potential adverse impacts and then that from there would come to the planning commission similar to the exception that would just came through. Uh if somebody failed to comply with this uh then it would go into violation and then we have a process here. Uh so that is the end of my prepared

materials. Uh if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

So Alexi, I just wanted some clarification. what the you know cuz we've discussed this multiple times and I just want to make sure I have this right in my head that you want to change the code the um the m municipal code so that we can multi- household buildings that would be built would be required to have some EV compliance or ready but this doesn't include like public parking, right? I just want to clarify that in my head. It's

Yeah. Yes. This would be parking associated with multi household dwellings. Okay. But not commercial or or other types of de development. And I think Corey also had something to add here. Well, okay. Just quickly, what I was going to hopefully is that we can open the public hearing and let that ride through the discussion period and then we can close and then go to deliberation. Yes. All right. So, what do I do for that? What do I say? So, I guess just this opens. I don't know. I don't pay attention enough to We don't do this enough. See,

open a public hearing with a time. Is that what needs to happen here? Yes. Sorry. Okay. There's a a potential public uh person in the Zoom world. I don't think I don't think it's They may have commented on this, but I don't think they're here for this item. Okay. Okay. So, of time. Do Do I have to ask for a motion of that or do I just At this time, we open this up for public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Perfect. Yep. Okay, there we go. Open. Open. Do we have people? We have We love some public comment, right? Anybody?

Can't hear nothing of it. While this person's coming online

possibly, um we did, as it was mentioned, reach out to stakeholders in the community of a variety contribution, we heard back um from somebody from an architectural perspective and also uh from an electrician electrical perspective. Uh from the architectural perspective, that person didn't have anything really to add. They thought it was well done. It covered, you know, the language uh was complete to what they were reviewing. From the electrician's perspective, their initial comment and they didn't they weren't able to really follow it further is that um essentially we're on the right track. the uh excuse me, the National Electrical Code, the NEC uh in his perspective was either in the process of or already has and and my research is that it may be in the process of adopting these standards universally as in the electrical code for all dwellings. So we we're a bit of ahead of the curve and also right at the curve in the scenario that the electrical code does adopt and becomes uniform to the state of Utah. Uh we would likely um repeal this particular section to acquies to the those standards. We would just remove it as it's already being done to a to an adopted state standard. But for the time being is it's not formally been adopted that we're quite officially aware of. we're going to continue with this process. Um, but other than that, he didn't have any specifics to what it is that we're discussing. And then beyond that, the NAC of uh adopted 20 23 edition is that specifically for EV readiness and there's a whole series of things around this. um it does already have some uh G GFCI parameters around how it's it's leading to this for EV but essentially is that it the NEC

specifically emphasizes the importance of AV readiness in building uh building code and then increased safety and then the importance for future proofing uh from that electrical system perspective which I think our code nicely does as well as whatever the their particular code might. So, that was just a little bit of contribution. It wasn't neither of those were official testimonies, but they were the stakeholder responses that we received. Dropped out. Oh, thank you. Um, for the record, I I believe that person was an applicant for our next item, not somebody to be heard on public hearing.

So, say not been. Can I play like a little bit of devil's advocate and ask some questions? Totally. Let's um in fact maybe we can close the public hearing and enter into deliberation. All right, since there were no um public comments, I will close the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. so we can have some further discussion. All right. Um Shaye,

Shaylee, I was like, who was that? Shaye, go ahead. Um, okay. So, I guess one of the questions I have is these are multiple household dwellings, which especially in our area tends to go to a little bit lower income and we know that electric cars are more expensive. I mean, requiring this of of them instead of like incentivizing it feels like a dangerous a little bit of a dangerous game to play with some of the developers when we're having such housing crisis that that like we're basically going, "Oh, by the way, you have to add this this entire cost regardless if any of your tenants or potential um people that live there will ever have an electric And that's like like is there a way to potentially incentivize it within the code instead of it being like a you path to do this?

Yeah. Uh I can answer and then you know if anyone on the planning commission also wants to say anything about it that's welcome too. Uh part of the reason we did it for the multi household was because they had the least control of their parking and in some cases electric vehicles can save people money. So it was excluding lower-income people potentially from having access to electric vehicles if it would not be available at you know their avail their options. Um so that was part of the reason and then the reason we didn't require any EV installed was for the exact reason that you're saying that it's possible today no one there drives an electric vehicle. So, we didn't want to make somebody install a charger, but they would be ready and save some costs up front because it would become less likely and more cost prohibitive to install it after the fact. Uh, on the incentive front, we did explore some different ways of incentivizing it. Uh, but I think as you pointed out that budgets are pretty tight and it's hard to make anything big enough that's a good incentive. So, um, we did look back at potential incentives that other communities had used and we sort of wanted to save them for stuff we want even more than electric vehicles. Would anybody else like to add to that? I mean, yeah, I think we did think this out pretty well and initially the idea was to bring in an incentive and that is part of why there's still an a small incentive for single homeowners making the switch or otherwise or wanting to upgrade. Um, but we just don't, you know, we don't have a lot to offer incentive wise. Um, and then I think if you go back to the slide where you compared costs of installation during development and installation after development, I mean, you know, we're talking I depending on the unit like

less than $1,500 per spot. And at least in my mind, when you're thinking about the entire budget of a multi-family household development, I don't know a lot of developers that will be made or broken by 15 to 800 bucks. And it does seem prudent um because like as Alexi pointed out, like people who rent those spaces have the least control over what the place they're renting looks like. So trying to provide them some amount of options I think was the spirit of this.

And if I can jump in for a little bit of this with our design fixture for exemptions and exceptions is while we might not be able to make as many incentives as possible. What we found is when there could be something that is a initiative that is progressive or or somewhat aggressive to a sustainable effect or something those typically all surround with some sort of added cost to development because it's initiating whatever it is that the goals are. It's not just maintaining the free market. So as we have limitations in what we can actually build in incentives, what we've come down is given multi household is anywhere from basically three to hundreds of units. When you're at a scale of hundreds of units, the the major costs are not in the conduit itself. That's actually a minutia cost. It'd be in the electrical upgrades, but at that scale of development, they're doing a major electrical upgrades to the grid or even to their transformers as is. So they just they factor in those charges. whereas there are those you know three to four units depending on where you're at in the community they it's not again the conduit that's the problem could be those electrical upgrades. So cost on its own is not itself a rationale for an exception but depending on the circumstances is where the plan commission say hey this we don't want this thing to kill a project under a particular criteria it allows you that flexibility so it's again allowing us to not throw the whole ordinance out you know maybe with the bathwater type effect just because there may be some hardships at a particular p perception um so I think that's where again maybe a tool into the future, we're going to be looking heavily on from my perspective is this exemptions and exceptions option as I've seen it be successful in our last couple of ordinances. So that's the only thing I might additionally contribute.

I think the other important thing to note here is like we are as a city coming down from city council and coming down at a state level, we are trying to make these initiatives. they've asked this of us and so that's kind of why we're putting some of this together.

That's a thank you. And we we did have this I think at our last workshop where we it was long enough interval between our our meetings we kind of got to like wait why are we doing this again? And the answer is we've been directed as a body by the council that they want us to generate this ordinance. So our job in this body at the moment is what is the best possible tool that we would deliver to council and it's council's job to say I don't like this tool because of potential drawbacks or anything else. Um and we can hopefully illuminate those where they making making a good choice or micro amendments. But yeah that's a good point to given this is the public hearing realm like yeah it takes restate that

that's not it's already been predetermined that we're we're advancing this but in what form I guess. So your guys's recommendations more to the content than to the direction if that makes sense. Thank you. That helps with the context.

Yeah, those are Thank you. Those are two really good points to hit. Yeah, I just wanted to say thanks to Alexi for all of the hard work throughout this whole process and doing so much thorough research and due diligence with all of the questions that this body has raised and Alexis's own research has raised and looking at examples from other communities. Um, and in between all of our different workshops and discussions, I I feel like all of the changes and little tweaks that have been made throughout this process have resulted in some really strong language. Um, and I also love that you were proactive about reaching out to relevant stakeholders in the community, especially because we always have uh such a such a shy public where it comes to our public hearing. So, appreciate you taking the extra steps to solicit some feedback proactively. Um, and I don't have any additional comments. I think it's looking really good. And Shay, I appreciate your questions to come up to speed on this um, subject as well.

Yes, thanks Alexi. you have done a thorough job and um yeah I I don't have any more questions. I just I needed to clarify that one thing. Um so and we discussed that. I I just appreciate all your hard work. It's been a lot and I appreciate you listening to all of our feedback over the last several months.

Oh yeah. Well, thank you for, you know, having strong discussions about this and making this better. I think that it's become a very targeted specific. It's it's unique to our community because this is what was most relevant to us based on the discussions we've had. Um so I appreciate all the feedback to make this better as we progressed through the conversations. Uh and also thanks to the planning team. Uh Johanna and Corey also put in a lot of work to make it uh come onto the agenda today. All right. If we, you know, there's a motion recommendation here. Um, if somebody wants to do that, if there's

if we think we're we're at that. Oh, go ahead. Yay, Carolyn. Um, I'll move to forward a positive recommendation of Moab City Ordinance number 13-2025, an ordinance amending the Moab Municipal Code section 17.09 to include additional regulations required for electric vehicle readiness of multi household development. All right, we have a positive recommendation by Carolyn Connor. Is there anybody that would like to second that? I'll second it.

Thank you, Miles. We have a second by Miles Loftton. Any further discussion? It doesn't sound like we have any further discussion. Let's take a roll call. Um Carolyn, I uh Miles I. Shaye, I. And myself, I'll say I. And that passes four to zero. Um all right. Thank you everybody for that great discussion. Um, thanks Alexi. Thanks. Thanks everybody.

All right, so this next one is also a public hearing. Um, so it's 5.2 two, consideration and possible recommendation of proposed ordinance 2025-14, an ordinance approving the zoning map amendment for the parcel located at approximately 610 SURAC, uh, Moab, Utah 4532, parcel 010036-0040 from R3 multihold residential and R8-1 residential agric ulture cultural to C3 central commercial zone and RA-1 residential agriculture. Um is there uh anybody Joe Hannah to um talk about this or anything first or

Yeah, do we first do the public hearing? I forgot already. Yeah, I think it's kind of up to the chair typically, but I think what we'll go through is a briefing and then open public hearing, uh, close, have discussion, and then enter into final preparations. But we do, just for everyone, we do have, I believe, an applicant here. So, I think we'll we'll, if she's not brought in, yep, we can bring her in. Uh, but we'll go through our briefing first and then we'll open the public hearing. Perfect. Thank you. Hi, Courtney. Nice to have you here. We're gonna Thank you for having me.

We're gonna ask that you stay muted till the commission uh invites you to speak. Thank you for being here. Okay. I Oh, I'm already sharing. Okay. We have another discretionary action for you today. uh zoning map amendment. Um we have the National Ability Center located at 610 SURAC. Um again, thank you Jill for reading that long title. Uh we are uh requesting a reszone from R3 and RA1 to C3 and RA1. We are also adjusting the boundary of this split zone. Um so we can take a look at this first photo. Um what we have currently and then uh we are adjusting the boundary to better fit the current buildings uh on this property. Um, so we have a pre-anexation agreement um that was accepted by city council in 2024 and then we just annexed uh 602 and 611 SURMAC on June 4th. Um, this body was part of that process. Um, and in the pre-anexation agreement for those two parcels, it did also mention this parcel and it

mentioned that it would be reszoned um as C3. Um, so that's part of this agreement. It it was supposed to be tied up in um the procedure and process of annexing 602 and 611. Um but we made a little bit of procedural error and forgot about this missing piece. So we're doing it now. Thank you all. Um this is the site plan for uh this parcel. Um so the new boundary adjustment uh nicely fits with fitting all of this plan into one zone instead of uh would be kind of cutting off the parking lot as is. Um, here are the zone differences. We have the setbacks over here and then the uses that are different over here. uh as we can see um in the R3 zone it's mostly um dwellings and then in the C3 zone you can have more businesses. Um I believe their proposed use is this first one adaptive recreational service provider. Um this is the criteria listed in code. Um what we look at or when we're judging U map amendment. Oh, and then here we go. Um so that's the end of our briefing. If you have any

questions for the applicant or would like to open the public hearing.

Um I we will should we go ahead and open the public hearing? Yeah. Good. Okay. Let's do that. We're gonna open this uh discussion or public hearing I mean at 7:01 PM and um let's go ahead and have a discussion about this. Uh could Courtney you elaborate a little more on this?

Sure. The very most important reason that we need this reszone is for that adaptive recreational service provider zone type or um category if you will and Joanna or whoever is driving. Yeah, there we go. Um this use the adaptive recreational service provider use is the only use that works for the NAC. So we this is mission critical and that's the long and short of it. So sure appreciate y'all helping us get through this little hurdle and back on track. Thank you Courtney. Um uh Shaye, we have been discussing this for gosh, I don't know, it's been a long time, so it sounds like we just missed a little something here. Um, so do you have any questions? You probably have the most questions. Um, as far as just any clarificate, is there anything we can do to help clarify this for you

or any questions? I mean, I have so many questions, but I also try not to like first meeting. Um, I mean, like have have we talked to the residential people that live right around there? Are they like super good with this turning into commercial? And they have been noticed of this public hearing. Um so okay uh by mail so they could come um if they had comments and we haven't had any in previous discussions. Nobody's

Yeah. And they were also noticed for the annexation of the nearby properties. So they had opportunity to come at that point as well. What level of lead certification are you guys going for? You guys might not specific what level? Sorry.

We will not be going for a specific lead status. There's a document that's part of our annexation agreement that talks about some of the leadesque items that we'll be doing. And that includes EV chargers, bird proof glass, um high I believe it included uh high efficiency insulation, just a few other things that are lead without burdening the clients with the additional cost of an actual lead certification. Yeah, I believe that language is future development.

Was there anybody else for the public hearing in house or on Zoom land? There does not appear to be any. Okay. I was just double checking. Mhm. How does annex the county like is it we just say we're going to annex it in the county like

Yeah. So sure and we could Yeah. The brief overview of this is that um the municipality in this uh political subdivision district has the uh ability to within its adopted annexation policy boundaries annex those properties as the municipal district. There's also the option that individual owners may petition to electively annex in. So whereas this um essentially this property and many is what we find uh properties that are adjacent to the city but within uh the county's jurisdiction would have a zoning that is um less conducive to what the potential buildout they'd like to do. And in this case, uh, specific to adaptus adaptive recreational, excuse me, recreational service provider, uh, it was a new use that actually we worked with the NAC to establish then go through panex. It was quite the saga um to do this, but anyway, they've elected to annex and go through that process. So um,

so this is a choice they're making. Correct. I know enough about them from Park City, right? Same novel. Yep. Yep.

And yeah, I think Shay kind of highlighted this point and Jill did as well. the the piece and Johanna the piece that we were missing is that through the annexation process it was negotiated within the pre-anexation that we would because the envelope included basically three existing parcels that would for this development which is something that can only happen upon the annexation consolidate those three parcels and then or well in this case the two so there's um a small yeah rectangular piece that is not the guide house but just south of that is part of the development envelope. So, we have to consolidate the annex property in to this existing parcel within the city. Now, we're just reszoning it, but it's essentially we're bringing this zoning into the conformance of what we've already annexed and allocated zoning to. So, with that, we were meant to concurrently run this zone change. What would have been convenient is at the same meetings we were doing the annexation process. The piece with that where we got tripped up is noticing requirements for a public hearing. So upon the certifications we're doing with the county and lieutenant governor's office, we said we forgot this public hearing piece. We're going to go back and cure that without question because there was some debate. There were public hearings during that process, but this was never called out in explicit form, the reszone, even though it was fully intended and for the most part covered within the site plan materials, everything else. Um, so yes, it's a um Oh, our attorney has a really lovely word for this. Um, uh, curing a procedural defect, I believe.

All right. I like that.

Is uh, do you guys have any more comments while we have a public hearing open? I'm glad we're doing our due diligence to um cure our procedural defects and it'll be nice, I'm sure, for Courtney and the whole um National Ability Center team to be able to definitively move ahead with all these great plans for the expansion um of the the site and the services that I'll be able to provide to students and their families. Okay, sounds like I'm ready to close the public hearing. So, I'll close the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Okay. Um there is a motion that's uh available. Um if somebody would like to go ahead and do that. Anybody? Don't worry. I will make a motion.

Is that Shaye? Shaylee. Shaylee. Yay. To approve 5.2 on our agenda. Consideration and recommendation of the well the defect but all the word the pre-anexation approval with the reasonzoning. Do I need to read it like that? Yeah. I think I have I make a motion that the city of Moab planning commission for it give a positive recommendation

to the city council for ordinance number 2025-14 to amend the zoning map for the parcel located approximately 610 Moab Utah 84532 parcel number 01-0036-0040 adjusting the current boundary and zones from R3 multi- household residential and RA1 residential agricultural to C3 central commercial zone and RA1 residential agricultural. Wonderful. Thank you. We have a positive recommendation by Shaylee Bryant. Anybody willing to second that.

Do we need to um because Sir Mack was omitted in the address there, do we need to restate that or is it fine? Pardon? Yeah, Caroline, can you restate that question? I didn't say sir smeac wasn't included in the recommended motion. So as read out by shay and the motion was in to a technical perspective and for sake of time the parcel ID is in there which is the prevailing identification. So I'm comfortable with the motion as [Laughter] thank good though. Yeah.

Okay. I'll second then if if that's fine. All right, we have a second by Carolyn Conant. Um, any further discussion on this topic? So, I have one thing that I just kind of thought about that I feel like is worth discussing because the last time we saw a zone change, we discussed the idea that we did not want to create an island of a particular zoning. M

uh I'm not seeing on the materials provided um what that corner where the guide house is like we're kind of technically touching we're creating a peninsula of zoning. Um but what's like that corner that's not labeled the to the north. Yes. So yeah to the north and west.

So the guide house or the what in this image is the red roof on the northern nonoloration parcel and then the one to the south. Those are those parcels that have just been annexed and they will be C3. The other non-colorated uh parcels and the road itself except apparently for a small sliver um will remain in the county and they I believe are remaining RA or RR resident rural residential zoning which is the existing zone of the county. This peninsula or existing peninsula as it seems is getting narrower. But the de technical definition of the state for a county peninsula within the city is talking about large tracks of narrow which we do have in the city. Um but this would not be what we consider one of those that is interfering with the annexation considerations.

And then even uh you know for me one of the concerns is the R3 that exists below it. It's very possible that whenever that property goes to a mandate, we will look at probably consolidating zoning to a consistent C3 throughout that property. Agreed. And most of the county zoning up against the highway there is also commercial. So yeah, it makes sense for this to exist as commercial zone. All right, that's all I want to talk about. Oh, good discussion though. Good question. Thanks, Miles. Any further discussion? I think we'll go ahead and take a roll call vote then. Um Shaylee I Miles

I Carolyn I myself I that is that passes four to zero in favor. So um let me get back to the agenda. All right. Thank you. Great. That was um great discussion and thank you for clarifying all of that and getting us back on the right path. So, have a good night. Thanks, Courtney.

Thank you, Courtney. Thank you, Courtney. All right, that brings us up to on our agenda number six, future agenda items. What do we have coming up, Johanna? And do you is it Johanna that has the future agenda items or is it Cy? Okay. The um landscaping exception we saw little teaser for hopefully their site plan approval next meeting. Other than that um I don't know how water is doing. I have it. It is very possible, but I can't put it because I'm waiting on review.

Alexi says very possible. Okay. Um, I can't think of anything else. Okay. And any uh code code overhaul updates? We haven't heard about that in a while.

Reference. Yes, our um zoning title update. We have heard from our consultants that we're on a timeline where and we are admittedly a step behind where we are hoping to have a working framework and content draft over for legal review and consultant review um and then having that process worked through in late August. So we're a little bit behind in delivering that to a legal review status. But that is essentially where we're teed up is generating the holistic framework and then bringing over content that exists uh for the rewrite. So the what was always a bit of an ambitious schedule for us was to be looking to have this come before commission in a workshop format into what I'd say late fall, early winter, and then what would be moving into an official public process and any engagements we might need to make in winter, late winter, but that hopefully looking for adoption in early fall, late winter, or excuse me, early spring, late winter of next year. So, maintaining some ambish ambitious uh timing, but as we've from a staff level, we've had to put it on hold. There are some pretty uh dominating projects going on right now is from a legal perspective, which you'll be seeing. Uh we'll have a number of development agreements uh and complex site plans coming before you. Um so, one of those is the preview we saw for uh the cooperative. There's another one on Cane Creek that is equally as complex that is also at a kind of blistering rate to get it through. So yes, I was talking to the engineering department earlier and we continue to add high priorities to our team without being able to output at the same rate. So I think Lexi's strategic initiatives feeling much of the same pressure. Um,

outside of that, maybe I'll note maybe not specifically future agenda, but the city is looking into options for a downtown master plan coalition. Uh, we have a number of plans and materials that are already in existence. We're looking at some grant options to bring that into uniting place. So, uh, much there's much happening in the strategic initiatives realm that will likely include the planning commission at certain intervals. But I think that's all I have. I think that's good for now. Yeah, that that sounds like a a lot coming on board. Um just a few things.

Yeah. I just wanted to also say welcome aboard, Shaylee. Um I'm so excited that we have another commissioner. Yay. Um and uh thanks for letting us join via Zoom. I kind of had to go to a state meeting unexpectedly. So, letting Carolyn and myself um join via Zoom makes it super easy occasionally. So, thank you. Thank you. Um if there isn't anything further, I will go ahead. Is that Are we good? I believe we are.

Okay. I'll adjourn this meeting at 7:18 p.m. And um we'll see you on the I think it's what? The 26th. 28th.