Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi, Sherry. I'm sorry you're not feeling well.

It just kept getting worse throughout the day. Sorry. I was like, I don't want to subject you guys to it.

No, I appreciate that. I love that. That seems to be a remnant from COVID is people just like happily choosing to stay home when they're sick. I think we're all the good thing.

Mm hmm.

Okay. We're straight. All right. Thank you, Johanna. All right. I will call to order this September 17th, 2026. Not 2016. That'll be a long time ago. Meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 6.10 p.m. Apologies for our late start. That one is on me. Here in Chambers, we have city staff, Caitlin Pointer, Johanna Blanco, Corey Shurtleff, and Kelsey Garcia, as well as planning commissioners, Matt, remind me your last name.

Matt Hebert.

Hebert, Matt Hebert. One of our new commissioners, myself, Kyme Rienfeld, Jill Tatton. And then we have Shaylee Holland joining us virtually this evening. And there is no one here in Chambers other than that. First item of business is citizens to be heard. Despite there being a public hearing this evening, I don't believe we received anything for that or for citizens to be heard otherwise. And no one's here in chambers. So moving right along to approval of minutes from our last meeting, which was on August 27th. I would hear a motion for that if someone has had a chance to read them. Yes, I read them.

I will make a motion to approve the minutes of the regular planning and zoning meeting from August 27th, 2026. All right.

We have a motion from Jill. Is there a second? I second it. All right. Second from Shaley. All in favor of approving our minutes from our August 27th meeting, please say aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All right. Moving along to our public hearing. This is a public hearing and action item, item four. First, we have 4.1, which is consideration and possible recommendation to city council draft City of Moab Resolution 15-2026, City of Moab Resolution to Adopt the City of Moab Annexation Policy Plan, a City of Moab Future Annexation Boundary Map, and the Anticipated Land Use of Future Annexation Area Map as Appendix C of the City of Moab General Plan. um i will go ahead and open the public hearing at 6 12 p.m we can hear presentations from staff have discussion and then we'll close the public hearing after that ready for you guys thank you okie doke um i had sent a modified um

materials to you guys. I had done this as a resolution instead of an ordinance. So any motion that we're making today will make as a motion ordinance.

Maybe while you're moving on that. So part of the reason for that is we are it's not really an election per se, but as we've been coordinating with our legal review that when we're making amendments to aspects of the general plan, a resolution could have been a mechanism to convey that. Comprehensive adjustments to a general plan often go through what would be an ordinance process. And so while this could have been on the fence as the way our legal representation, we're opting into the larger process, which would be an ordinance review process, which from a staff side we agree with, So yeah, it was I think a better way to approach this.

Okay. So hopefully everybody's gotten a chance to review the materials. What was sent to you has three elements. We've got a policy plan, which is already existing in our code. We're updating and It's not in the general plan right now. So right now it lives in the code, so we'll be... updating that and then also adding it to the general plan. We've got an annexation boundary map, which exists and is also currently in the general plan, but it'll be replaced. Then we have the anticipated land use of future annexed area map, which is just new. We have something similar, a future map, zoning map. But the one that's existing in the general plan right now is just our zones. Yeah. Yeah. So the policy plan is been made to the standards of state code. State requires us to have annexation policy plan before we could annex any unincorporated territories. Oh, almost most importantly, the reason that we are doing this updated annexation boundary map is to hopefully prevent other new cities from plopping down in the middle of Spanish Valley and saying, we're gonna start a new city right here. We saw a new city pop up close to Moab. So drawing a new annexation boundary map saying, we intend to at some point in the future, no longer, no matter how long that takes, Drawing that boundary would prevent another city from forming in that area. So the plan, it identifies the areas where the city may at some point in the future expand through the maps. And then the plan also establishes policies that the city would use when reviewing new annexations, whether that's applicant-initiated or city-initiated, and overall just sets a path for us to grow in an orderly fashion when that happens. So the plan applies to applicant-forwarded petitions, city initiative petitions. It would also apply to pre-annexation agreements. And then it's going to be how we plan to expand municipal services is the general gist. So this last bit is very important as well. Just because somebody is in the boundary does not mean that they need to annex. And it also doesn't mean that the city is promising to provide services for that person. So it goes both ways. So here's the future annexation boundary. Oh, sorry. The current future annexation boundary that we have in our general plan right now goes about from Lyons Park to the new stoplight. And then here is the proposed annexation boundary. goes from about the UMTRA site down to the San Juan boundary. Makes sense. And then here is the anticipated land use of future annexation sites. Sorry, I'm forgetting the official title. So what we did here was we took Grand County's current zoning as well as their future land use map. And we made things more general because our residential zones have different names than their residential zones. So we didn't try to do a one-for-one match. It's just separated into residential, commercial, mixed use, more general categories. I can pull up a better slide. And we can go through what we've written as the definitions of what those zones mean to us. Where this is going to be used or useful would be when there's an annexation petition. And you all are reviewing to see what zone they fit best in. This could be one piece of evidence that you could use in your final decision. It is also going to be useful for when the county has a legislative action that they're taking to zone a property, the city could use this map. to advise them as well. And then this is the future land use map of the county right now that was used as a piece of information when we were making the future land use map. Our anticipated land use map. Okay. That's most of what I have. If we'd like to Looking at anything further, I've got everything open.

I'll maybe add some comments. Wonderful. So with element one being the policy itself, where we find ourselves, not only that we are fulfilling what is essentially the intended obligation that the state has for us to have a robust and comprehensive annexation policy plan of which we currently have in our journal plan is just a map. That is it, a singular map. That is the embodiment of our policy. So currently, when annexation is being proposed, whether it's through petition or would the city be looking to annex a group or a section area of property, there is no adopted policy In essence, policy for how, when, and why we do those things. So we have that. We have that internally, and it has been adopted by administration, and it also complements when we have a pre-annexation agreement. What are the terms that are typically qualified within that? So it's not that we're rudderless in how we've been approaching annexations, but what this will do is memorialize that in a way that is, you know, adopted as the community, the Planning Commission, the public, and then the City Council. The research and drafting that staff has done, I think I have to compliment. I think it is very well done for where we're at in this process. Obviously, we have some desires within this policy plan that would be nice to add in, but it is beyond our office. It is going to require much, much more as far as comprehensive infrastructural and asset planning. management inventory so we will bring that along as we compile those things but waiting for those things and what it is that we should be doing now which is securing our policy needs to advance so that was brought up well should we go and do all these things these asset audits yes we'll do those but we should not wait uh to to adopt this policy so many of these policy elements are going to seem baseline yes exactly that's the intent not too inflammatory in any one of these instances but what would what it would do is frame and structure that we are just as johannes expressed moving through what should be concurrency of development which is the the land use and legal term for developing in a way that we don't find ourselves being unable to serve our community, whether that is our community by adjacency or our community within our jurisdiction. Community building, very, very important to what I believe is my position in this department, is community development. So that's the policy plan. Then onto the boundary map, what we're seeing, and this was drafted through a number of iterations between admin and staff that it was very thoughtfully identified as to where this boundary ought to be. This is not new. During our strategic plan, of 2026, so in January of 2026, this past year, the city council more or less reviewed three general possibilities of an annexation future. One that looks really similar to this, which is more or less the valley that is development of Moab and Spanish Valley. um but then identifying the entre area and what is the echo canyon area so we with this have moved forward with the way the admin's seeing the extension of service services and impacts to the public of moab these areas would make sense for us to to include um and again from a boundary position as uh johanna has outlined uh This exercise again is not to say that annexation is occurring. This is a security measure to ensure that if there is a preliminary municipality that The fact that we've adjusted our boundaries give us a seat at the table for those discussions. It's not to say that there couldn't be a city or a preliminary municipality established within this boundary. It's that we have a seat at the table to help negotiate what that means and what makes sense. If we don't, we have zero say yet opportunity. all of the sewer impacts unless there were to be developing a new wastewater treatment center would be coming to municipal jurisdiction so again this group and all of us kind of nodding along I think for the record purposes we're this is a it is a very obvious and well overdue action and we're all kind of nodding along, but it's a big deal and it's going to be a big deal the further this gets to adoption. So we want to lay the groundwork effectively that we're saying what needs to be said to get out to the community. Hopefully people are watching this now or after the fact and then decide that they do want to come in and have some testimony. We do have somebody in the audience, I think with the poke hand, we can come back to that. I'll finish maybe my spiel and we can go from there. So again, with the boundary, Very important, I think, that we identify these boundaries in the way it was. I will say, with the boundary selection, you're identifying what is... Now, I'm wishing Nick was here. Maybe this is my planner's pop quiz check. What we're seeing as far as why the geometry of these parcel boundaries lies within the quarter sections of the track is that when... These properties, broader properties, the big squares you're seeing on this map, were established through the land survey of 1798, whatever it is. That's the date. I'm like, what was the date?

Yeah, it's the different township and range.

Yeah, and so they just generated that before any of their understanding of our area existed. So you're seeing polygons. You're like, why don't we have... a radial vector that makes sense. That's why. But within that, the boundaries that we've identified is we are not including any public lands. That is not to say sovereign or SITLA lands. We are including anything that could be developed or is applicable to services. Again, that's the key that we need to bring this back to. This is not a territory grab. This is how we apply services to our community and the public. So all of these properties and the outlines that we've had, we've filled in some spots that you can see in the county's mapping and future. future future land use maps for the county that they have some peninsulas even within there we've we've just been captured anything that is developable or may become developable in the future so that's the the boundary now on to and this is really where i think i will bear the burden of any questions and responsibilities uh this anticipated land use future annexation area this is non-typical for a lot of reasons. There's two examples, one that's local and one that's not local, why this is important and become pressing for us to establish. Which is also to say, this is non-binding. This is an advisory to the materials and negotiations the Planning Commission Council will have going forward. Through a recent proposed rezone for a county property in its county jurisdiction, but was within our annexation area and would also be completely dependent upon municipal services for the development of which that rezone could have created a big commercial rezone of what was previously grazing. Had that property not been within our annexation policy area, we would have had no seat at the table to say, we aren't going to be capable of serving what you are now about to bestow as land use rights to this property. And that's not to say we can't and shouldn't have a negotiation of how that can move forward for the best options of the developer and that property, but it needs to be within the realities and feasibility. What we've seen in other places, locally still, is where we have not been a part of that discussion, preliminary municipality or development as otherwise, has incurred a massive burden on our systems that they're like, sorry, that's your problem. And because we weren't at the table, they moved forward with that or are currently in a bunch of litigation over whether it will move forward or not. So where we saw this not in our community is we saw a county jurisdiction, this one not necessarily immediately adjacent to a county, municipality. So annexation not really being the prime keeper of this, but we did hear testimony from a municipality that had this. And in fact, Caitlin Alford, a really good question at the planning conference surrounding data centers. Again, if say a major land use that's going to impact the municipality to a significant degree, but it's outside their jurisdiction and have no seat at the table, they have no way to grapple with those effects. So again, What this will do is as developments, large-scale developments or zoning amendments are happening in the county, We can ensure that it's aligning with the general understanding that we're all signed up for as far as infrastructure services and capacities. Now, we have very little discretion, our council administration, to steer a rejection or denial or even approval if it's something we really were pursuing and they don't want to. But it does give us, again, a seat at the table to say we need to maintain some consistency of what we can handle as a valley. So that's my piece on that. I would, my final send off here is just what I said. This is overdue. It is not extraordinary for what it is that we're meant to doing, but it is very important. So it's warranting public discussion, public input, but it is critical that the public understands what this is and what it, more importantly, what it is not. And that's what I think going into the future in the next couple of weeks and months. We're going to be grappling with what this is and what this is not is probably going to be talking about more than what it is. So I feel you guys have a really good foundation. Any questions for staff from a drafting perspective? Questions our staff's asking the state and other municipalities? That was excellent. And then anything with

I do have a quick question about is this map or a similar map going to be the only thing that is demonstrating the intended proposed future zoning? And I could say why I'm asking is because there are several places on the map where the boundary line is so thick, you can't actually tell what the underlying color is supposed to be of some little strips that are in it. Like look right above Westwood Avenue, for example. It just looks red because the boundary line is too thick.

We've got a KML file that you can zoom in all the way. And so each, it's... Really not the best photo, but each property does have a specific color assigned to the entire.

For some of those areas, you just genuinely can't tell what it's supposed to be because the overall boundary is just the thickness is too much.

Yeah.

Like river sands.

Yeah. Tied to parcel boundaries. And again, what are the layers of zoning that exist at the county level? Yeah.

And trying to make sure someone wasn't going to be like, it's resort.

It's red. Yeah, it's the line.

Whereas actually that strip of land above Westwood Avenue is resort.

Yep. No, that's a great question. A great question. Because as the public's looking at this, they're going to obviously, what is the first thing everyone's going to do is, where's my house? And so that is something with staff, with the mapping systems we have, we'll be more than happy to.

As long as they're out there in the public.

Maybe have a larger rendered map for as we move into future meetings to have. Maybe at the back, folks can check out a large scale map.

Yeah. For individuals.

Quadrant.

Yeah.

Right now. Sure. That's really a very good question.

Public. If you'd like. Are you here for this? Would you like to say anything? It's a public hearing, technically. Yeah, sure. Come on up. You know the drill. Introduce yourself. Speak into the mic.

Hello, I'm Aaron Lindberg, and I am not speaking for the Grand County Planning. I just was doom scrolling and saw this and was like, what? What is this? Yeah, and I was like, have you talked to anybody in the county? But I'm going to go back and watch those things that you're describing. Because, I mean, you know, I was like, oh, we haven't heard any of this at the county level. And I was like, should we be communicating with you guys? Because I'm like, hmm, you know, like we have resort specials and everything going on there. But it sounds like I understand what you're getting at. with that but that's like you know my first reaction was like holy crap so yeah but that's yeah i think you know that's that's a good point explaining what it's not so i think a big applause to the constituency that aaron is out there and he's watching over for you guys it's just aaron guys i'm just kidding

But yeah, to Aaron's point, no, I think it's a really good point to bring up is that following the strategic plan that the council held, and I can't speak to coordinations between the commission and council or leaderships within that. But from a staff perspective, I know we've met with the county, former county council, community development director and economic development director at at least two intervals discussing the general process of this. But we have not, in essence, that this is kind of being introduced intentionally as, hey, we're starting this, confirmed or any way adopted by the county. Again, it's not that we're not looking to coordinate with county, but we sourced county materials to create this. So as we were chatting with what Melissa and Andrew, uh, wanted to give him a heads up. Hey, we're, we're, we're going to be moving this direction. Uh, we don't know what exactly that map will turn out as, but that's what I'm assuming is the next couple steps will become that super, super good point.

Yeah. I think that, you know, we're re we're rewriting the land use code right now. And we just got through the easy part. The hard parts are like, we had a general idea of a map. And I'm like, oh, we have like economic importance zones that I don't see on that. And it's like, you know, we're looking at like third acre usage. And I've been saying like, we need maybe to coordinate better. I don't know. But this is a thing where it's like, you know, how does that incorporation of, could the county have some pitfalls? Like, should that be like a coordination thing?

what you guys are doing that would be my whole two cents on that so i sorry this i could realize this is a public hearing there is not meant to be the bad question i'm so sorry that's all right okay now the comment was done but maybe i'll in my own response say that i think just addressing the commission um that would be i think the intent is that as again these are the materials that are adopted through the county right now. So as the county, as the city is also looking to update its land use plan and then go through a general plan amendment process, which is really the process to redistrict and reanalyze, not just zoning mechanisms, but how and where zoning densities and all those things happen. the county going through their process, we would, I almost certainly hope, be a part of that technical advisory committee, as well as just stakeholders, that wherever the community directs the county to adopt those, we'll update this as this goes. So it's important that we get this established, and then as new material is coming in and adopted at the county, that can be then reflected. Because again, it's this rolling understanding of, okay, if that's happening, future designations and considerations for say bigger, denser, more impactful development, okay, then we're going to have to adjust what our concurrency planning is for infrastructure to accommodate those things. So super, super good comments.

But I think to that point, I think it's reflecting what is the reality right now and what's on the ground. And that is the intent of this as we move forward, understanding that we are changing our land use plan, the county's changing their land use plan, and this is meant to be something that's adaptable. By setting now The fact that it mirrors existing uses on the ground in the county, I think, lends it to logically continue to follow that.

And because we grappled with this, how do we capture that larger statement that you just said? And so anticipated land use, the best of our understanding as it is now, we anticipate this. So that is to say... new information comes up and the county or a particular private property hopes to rezone to something that is disproportionate to what's anticipated. Oh, we can, we can talk about that.

Yep.

Yep. You got it.

Makes sense. And thank you for your comment. Glad you were doing scrolling. Can I say one more thing? If you'd like to approach the mic again, reintroduce yourself.

One of the things I see in the county too is we're developing neighborhoods in the county that are on the sunny acres area of this stuff. It's weird. There's neighborhoods that are through passageways that have 15 mph posted and people are going 50 mph. And and it's like, oh, you have a neighborhood like you need like a playground. And it's a we're we're seeing this weird patchwork effect. And I'm like, really, you should be like in the city. But like no one would pay that tax. And they're like way far out. And it's like, here's a neighborhood here next to 20 acres. And that's something like that's happening, too. It's like, do we now provide like city services? Are we an urban community? county that's the question that the county I think needs to ask are we a rural county where yeah Moab's it and then the county deals with outside things so I think that's questions for the county that's a very good point thank you again

All right, so our potential action tonight is recommending a draft of the ordinance.

I've got a small adjustment. Okay. I would actually now recommend that we table and discuss again. Okay. And then have an action at our next meeting, and I'm happy to provide any more information that you guys need at the next meeting. Cool. Whatever questions you have, I can bring more detailed answers. If anything comes up during the week, give me an email just so that we get more people coming. That'd be nice.

I think if there's no problem with timeline, that's fine.

Yeah, I think the plan is to also go to city council twice as well because we want as much engagement on this. For sure. And we need time to

speak with the county yes and to be clear once again cory explained this but to put a finer point on it this is not giving any sort of assurances it's not saying the city will annex this and it will annex it as this zone it's not saying the city It intends even to annex this. It's saying this would be logically where would be an area that we would have an interest in annexing potentially and we'd like to identify it. And I think that is very important. This is not anyone's like This is not the city eyeing someone's property, to be clear, because I feel like sometimes those wires get crossed in the community, and I want to make sure that's in the son's transcript of this meeting.

In essence, this is to... memorialize where it would make sense or where it makes no sense for another city to exist yeah totally so it's not saying that I think kind of said there's going there could very well be for 50 60 years rural county properties and land use and development that remains not within an urbanized or municipal type structure. But it doesn't make sense at any point in that timeline for that to be a different city. That's what this is.

We're not multiple suburbs budding up against each other. We are the Moab Valley and it's either Moab or it's unincorporated Grand County. that makes sense okay so tabling would be staff's recommendation okay um i will close the public hearing now at 6 43 p.m with the intent to do it again yeah i would appreciate some deliberation here's some thought yeah uh sherry didn't feel well i'd hate to

Not Shaylee too much, but some feedback from the commission would be helpful.

Yeah.

At least if nothing else to inform when we do come next week, we've satisfied.

I think the general zone recommendations, or what we're calling it, intent, makes sense. We should not be trying to parse out R2, R3, R3. r4 c1 c2 like commercial tbd residential tbd i think makes a heck of a lot of sense i noticed there was some industrial tbd up at the entre site like that seems like a good like a rough framework that i think will help prevent or facilitate i should say Individuals who maybe are trying to really do long-term planning on a potential development or investment who aren't trying to plop commercial smack in the middle of what is currently rural residential, which the city annexation proposal or policy would show would likely remain residential. That makes sense. I think it's detailed enough without being like...

absurdly specific to the point of like not making any sense this will mirror a lot like our land use code yeah is that we're going to be doing a fix probably prior to our general plan update once our general plan update occurs and and or the county's maybe not general plan update but their land use plan update occurs those could inform inform changes here but again yeah We will continue to adapt this map, but we need this map to start somewhere. But we'll continue to evolve and not have it become dusty and antiquated.

And there's a lot. I mean, I've been on the planning commission for I don't know how many years. It's five or six years. But there have been a lot of annexations in that time frame. Yeah. So it's definitely something that we see. And most of those have been coming in, matching the adjacent zones, but not always. So I think it just practicality wise, it makes good sense to be to be doing this.

Definitely. Great.

I would love to hear more about conversations that are happening with the county around this. Just, I think it's important that we make sure that we're, you know, doing our best to, like, have it, you know, for optics that we're, like, having those discussions, you know, the like I don't love that the County planning and zoning didn't even realize this was happening today. Um, and so that, that's like one area for me between now and next one is like, you know, are we having discussions? What do they look like? How can we help support those discussions? Cause I think it makes sense that we want to see that the table, um, that, you know, we don't have a city plop down and then say, good luck Moab, have fun taking care of us. Um, I just would love to make sure that we're opening those lines of communication.

Definitely. I think I can provide probably some hard materials next time is to say, here's who met when and what the understandings are, maybe as a kind of a benchmark for how to respond to that.

Perfect.

Two, Matt, any thoughts, comments? I agree. I like keeping the zoning a little more, I don't want to say vague, simple. And if we could provide a little more information, that would be great. Otherwise, I think this is a really good move for the future.

And I've heard this kind of said a couple of times, and maybe I'll comment on it. So with the anticipated land use map, and you all are saying, and using the correct vernacular, is that this isn't a zoning map, right? It's a future land use. And the reason we're saying that is residential impacts, commercial impacts, industrial impacts, or sensitive area, which is we had to kind of get outside the box a little bit. We used model policy plans from a variety of places. and sampling, and we had to get a little bit more sophisticated that we're not the Salt Lake Valley. Obviously, we say this all the time. So we're grappling with future land use anticipations that a lot of folks aren't. So that's not to say resort wouldn't make sense there, but resort without the idea of restricted densities or restricted capacities given the sensitive area. It's like, yes, we have to obviously contemplate that. So that was a way to open the door to say, put it this way both the county and the city have current active zoning where there is grazing on cliff where there's not a stitch of vegetation the reason they chose that it was it was the least impactful for a land use entitlement that somebody come in and buy and get promised to build a data center or something a roller coaster that was a way to protect so again as this is a tool sort of just let's not call it grazing because you can't graze there. It doesn't make any sense. Let's call it something else. Let's call it what would be resort. But it would have to be developed in a way that makes sense within the context of that land. So that's, yeah, what I'm kind of getting at with this is when folks are seeing this anticipated land use, it is by no means a zoning map. It's just meant to be residential impacts, commercial impacts in these areas. So it could be very dense residential or very light residential. So that big yellow swath we're seeing, it could be any sort of resident without necessarily contradicting this anticipated map. But yeah, you guys were nailing it. I thought that was an opportunity to kind of even for the community to further understand what we're doing here. This isn't locking anybody into anything. And not only that, it's only implying we anticipate the impacts to our sewer systems, our water systems, being of a certain caliber that is proportionate to those types of land uses.

Makes sense. Matt, anything to add?

It certainly makes sense that we protect the land around Moab and prevent further development of a city where it really shouldn't be. And that's what we're doing here. And I certainly understand that.

Yeah. Which is likely also why this is the sort of the first introduction of this too, is the process starting with this very big picture, very, very broad Not big area, but just a visual of the area. Things like the anticipated land use of future annexation almost being the least important part of all this. It's the dotted red line. That's the most important thing. And that's the thing that I do think. I don't think that's actually something that requires a whole ton of coordination or consultation with other entities other than the public of the city of Moab because it is us expressing our desires and nobody else can... decide that for us um whatever happens on the ground what the reality is what that happens after that's all conversations that we have with other municipalities other entities things like that but just this in like hey it makes sense to us long term if this is in within the area that could feasibly someday be the city of moab according to us the city of moab and that's pretty much like the conversation i think um And then all of the other things would be where sort of like the nitty gritty details end up being.

I appreciate you saying that. I think between Shaylee's comment and some of the public comment, in this idea of collaboration, coordination, of course, absolutely. Transparency, certainly. But it is, and I'm not trying to step on toes here, somewhat irrelevant because it's not about coordinating with the county. It's about coordinating with any predatory type preliminary municipalities. So again, to the boundary line, it was contemplated at one point in the strategic plan, do we just bump maybe the boundary line to Spanish Trail, Spanish Valley? Yeah. That's where it is. But what we're saying then is it makes sense for another municipality to come in south of that, which it wouldn't. It's a big change. It's a big dotted line change. But when we're talking about GWSA, our current law enforcement and emergency services and our current infrastructural services and ILAs that we currently have, you've absolutely nailed that. I appreciate that. So I do not want to downplay the idea of transparency and coordination in the county. But this isn't really a discussion between the city and county. This is a discussion about the city in any context. possible cities that might be coming. So with this map, we're basically ensuring the relationship that currently exists without a dynamic of not just one, but multiple more preliminary municipalities is coming. It's a bit wild to me, and this is evolving at the state. This is new legislation, and the reason some of the actions are somewhat urgent is the state has been changing both with their PID process and preliminary municipality regulations where it has kind of gotten to the point of somebody could just come and stake a flag in the ground, and we, the citizens of this valley, have no say in that. That's pretty outrageous to me. And so this is, again, a response to that to ensure and memorialize the people of this community have a say in what's going on, not outside of their interests. So again, yeah, an urbanizing county, that is a really, when we're talking about anticipated land use, that's why this was a bit touchy. The anticipated land use map starts to provoke some of those questions. It is a little bit more of a collaborative discussion with the county, but there were some things that had happened recently where we were compelled to say, we got to get something on paper and we're just going to take what the county has and basically adopt that. Those are all super good prompts. That was what I was hoping to get out of at least tonight. So thank you for our citizen commentary, for sharing this commentary, you guys, that helps to have on record and anybody else that picks us up. hopefully a lot of people are going to listen to this in the next week or two.

No, I think that makes good sense. And that's, then that's all saying like, absolutely. Anytime there's any, even a hint, frankly, of an actual annexation, the collaboration with the County is exceptional on that or planning something or negotiating or, You know, we do development agreements all the time. A lot of those include pre-annexation agreements. And so that is all stuff that heavily involves the county.

And to the complement staff, the policy plan that they've drafted ensures that collaboration between the county and city is better because it's been piecemeal until now. Whose street is this? Whose stormwater is this? It's been every annexation's kind of its guessing game. So this will help. create a more consistent path line that all the, quite frankly, the staff and service agents know what to expect. Okay, as we're building, here's how and when we'll transition infrastructure or maintain infrastructure as it's been. That's important to us too because we're grappling with annexation and consequences of annexations that have happened where we're still grappling with how to serve those folks. Totally.

Shaylee, does that

address any of your concerns for sure yeah I mean I totally get what he's saying that it frankly doesn't it's not necessary I get that I just for optics points I just feel like that seems to be a really red button right now that like the city does stuff without the county and the county does stuff without the city so that was just for more of an optics thing just making sure that the discussion is happening

yeah no that's i think absolutely nailing it and that's where i think we're kind of limited i think i would really we're gonna obviously with city leadership administration and hopefully elected leadership be able to have that side of the discussion going now that this is real this is before commission and it's a real life thing now can actually have a platform for those to discussions to be had hopefully totally

No, it's always absolutely something to keep a close eye on. So I appreciate the comment about that. Okay, we closed the public hearing. We've had some good chats. We have a recommended motion, which for today, staff is recommending we're just tabling the ordinance to our next meeting. if there's any direction or more information that we think we might need. It doesn't sound like based on the discussion we've had that that necessarily is something we've come up with, but everyone correct me if I'm wrong and someone feel free to make a motion and include in your motion any information or things you'd like staff to provide before the next meeting, if so.

I will go ahead and make a motion. I move to table the City of Moab Ordinance 2026-20 to the September 24th meeting with the direction of the city staff to provide the documentations that we have discussed during our meeting as more information.

All right, we have a recommended, excuse me, we have a motion to table from Jill with the addendum of just providing the documents we've discussed at the meeting today. Is there a second?

I second that motion.

All right, a second from that. Any further discussion or amendments? All right. All those in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. That was an aye from Shaley, too. So motion passes to table this to our next meeting on September 24th for zero. Moving on. Future agenda items. Other than this.

Yes. So I just sent out the agenda item. two hours ago. I'll be making an amendment to add this item on Monday. But what's on there already is an amendment to the sidewalk fee in lieu code. And then... code amendment for vendors. Ooh, gosh. We're going to be discussing some of Chapter 5 in the business license code. And then we're going to be adding some discussing, adding some permitted uses into Chapter 17, our land use code, so that people can get land uses, expanded land uses that we already have, we have a food truck court available in one zone, but we've changed some definitions and opened that up to more zones. And I'm super excited to talk to you guys about it again. Yeah. And then that's next meeting. Next, next meeting. I've got a master fee schedule update to bring to you. That's kind of regular stuff. We've got a few updates. Engineering had a few updates that we just didn't make into the big master fee schedule update. update of the year this past year so bringing that now and then we may have a da for you guys to review next next meeting as well so lots of good things development agreement yes development agreement just trying to say acronyms more get into group speak here

Awesome. Did you have another?

Just with future, my hope is that I think with like what we've seen is there's postings about what we just saw was our annexation policy plan is into next meeting where we'll be bringing this back up off the table will not be a public hearing. Therefore, the construction of how public comment can be best utilized and advanced is So coming as a citizen to be heard, technically, that's not going to be able to be utilized as testimony per se, influencing y'all's recommendation. However, we want to hear from people. We want people in the room. We want them to come talk. So.

Should I have kept it open?

No, not necessarily. So we've satisfied our statutory requirements. So in the instance that there is a group of people that would like to come and provide testimony, I think that is we could provide a public comment period at that meeting, depending on what is happening. Now, that doesn't still qualify as legal testimony, but it does fortify it much better. So if there are folks that are listening and as you as commissioners are out there and you're hopefully promoting people to look at this or provide whatever it is they can, Written testimony, even if it's just a small little paragraph, up, down, whatever, that does qualify. So they can come and speak, but then have a written testimony that does count and their verbal testimony necessarily count per se on the record, but still we get the drift. So we will be doing that with our communications director and as a city just trying to bolster as much as we possibly can. um but as you guys are out there in the community hopefully promoting this trying to get buy-in that way you know how to direct people the best to get get their comments onto the record so so provide input preferably a written public comment yes and then please come in the room and see us talk to us and we want to hear from you um yeah that makes sense the chair has the power to opt into a public comment period at the meeting. So you have the authority to open that up. So it's not a public hearing, but you can create that space that is citizens to be heard. Someone remind me. We got you.

Yeah, that sounds great. I think that makes good sense. Yeah, always more input is always good on folks. Prior to next meeting, just one quick note, the vendor code, I'd be very interested to hear examples of vendors you've spoken with and what their input was. I know that's something we've talked about was important to that process. And if there's anything like, concrete i can bring to the table i think that would really help the conversation so thank you cool all right um thanks everyone for having a special meeting tonight um i will adjourn