Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

having audio issues um with Zoom. I think Caroline, can you hear us now? I can. Yay. Sorry. I guess that was me. I think it was a Zoom glitch on everybody's end. Um uh we are recording. We should be live streaming on YouTube. I'm seeing dot dot dots from Eve. [laughter] Good here. All right. Everything's working.

All right. Excellent. Thank you for your patience. Um, everyone, all interested parties who are watching, participating, listening, and will be listening in the future. Um, all right. I will call to order this Monday, December 1st, 2025 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission. This is a special meeting. Um, first item of, excuse me, at 6:13 p.m. A little late start because of our technical difficulties. Uh, first item of business is citizens to be heard. This is for items that are not on the agenda. Um, if it's an item that's on the agenda and you'd like to say something about it, we we'd be happy to call you up to the dis um at that time. But this would just be for anything that's not on the agenda tonight, which I am betting no one is here for. Oscar, you just hanging. All right. [laughter] Uh, and we did get uh one uh email uh essentially just in support of um passing a master trails plan. So, we'll note that with the agenda item. Um, next item of business is item 3.1, approval of our minutes from our last meeting, which was way back in October on October 23rd, uh, 2025 regular meeting. Minutes are there in the agenda. If other commissioners have had a chance to look over them, um we can entertain a motion or if there need to be corrections, um we can hear those now as well.

I'll go ahead and move to approve our minutes from the October 23rd, 2025 regular meeting. All right, we have a motion to approve those minutes from Miles. Is there a second? I second it. Okay, a second from Shaylee. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of uh approving the minutes from the October 23rd meeting say I. I. I.

All right. Minutes approved. Five to zero. Oh, excuse me. I did not uh go over attendance. Uh in attendance at our meeting tonight, we have city staff Johanna Blanco, Corey Sherliff, and Kelsey Garcia. Um all five planning commissioners, uh Shaylee Bryant, Miles Loftton, myself, Kai Marinfeld, Jill Tatton, and Carolyn Conant. and a variety of folks in the audience um both uh intrepid local reporters and people who work for the city and the county um or others who I think are here for the the trails plan discussion. Um we also have our city council leazison I know who is participating um remotely this evening. Uh, okay. Next item of business is our first action item 4.1, which is a public hearing and consideration and possible recommendation of Moab City Planning Resolution 172025, a resolution approving the 2025 non-motorized master trail plan as prepared by the Grand County Active Transportation and Trails Department. Uh Johanna, I do you want to kick it off and then if we hand it over, we'll call up others.

Yeah, sure. Um I've received a handout for everybody. So if you could pass these around, take one, pass it on. Um today we're looking at passing the plan. So if you have any discussion or questions, we have um someone online or somebody in person to ask any questions. Otherwise, we are looking for the approval of the plan along with the handout uh as an addition to what is in your packet.

Got it. question. Can we do that because this was not included in the packet? I believe so. All right. Corey assured me that that is okay. Yeah. If we want to dig in a little bit deeper about that, we can. The short answer is if it is not substantially changing the content of the ordinance, the answer is yes. If it changes fundamentally elements, we would have to read notice. Got it. That would just giving a quick

Oh, yeah. This information w does need to be shared tonight as to what is in the content though. So I know we have a handout but unless we have a digital to on record actually scroll through the full digital so it's on record uh even if we scroll through it quickly uh it will have to maybe not be read verbatim but in a thorough review. We should make miles read the whole thing. Oh yeah that would be a nice parting gift. See that seems appropriate. Y'all want to be here. But this can be maybe a summary, you know, summarized a full summary by Yeah. our consultant. Great. That might help.

Um and it and I forgot to mention that um Maddie Logitz with GCAT is on on Zoom as well. Um Maddie, please feel free to speak up if there's anything you'd like to say or add. We can formally recognize you or or feel free to just chime in as well. Um, I I will open the public hearing now at 6:17 p.m. and we can leave it open for the balance of our discussion and then I'll close it at the end. Um, okay. Anything Johanna or otherwise Katie? I can explain the addition. Sure. Yeah. If you want to come up just um say your name again and who you are for the record and just a quick little um agenda would be great.

Sure. I'm Katie Murphy. I'm the uh special project coordinator for the non-motorized trail master plan. I work for GCAT, the Grand County Trails Department. Um the addition is um hopefully highly non-controversial. Um it is just a description of how trail maintenance works for um natural surface trails. Um which was just something that we ran out of time before we finished the um before we got to the deadline for noticing. Um, and there are lots of things we would have liked to have added, but this seemed particularly important just for sort of posterity and future generations. Uh, what to consider uh when maintaining trails. Um, just important things to note in a trails master plan. So, we thought we'd give it a shot and see if we could get that added in there. It doesn't look to be uh too long in form and then it is broken into what looks like

five categories. Um could we just walk through the categories and a brief summary of each of those categories and I think that's sufficient to cover our uh noticing thresholds. Um Maddie might be a better person than me to walk through it as she wrote it. Hey Maddie, are you there? Did you catch that? I am here. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. If speak up just a little bit. You're kind of quiet. Okay. Sorry, I have a cold, so my voice is a little um

not all there, but let's see. Okay, so um basically in the um current plan, there are several sections about how to maintain um paved trails and soft surface trails. And so this section seemed like something that we should include for natural surface trails, which is kind of the last big category. Um, so it goes over basically some basics of natural surface trail maintenance, which includes that they um, you know, weather over time. And then there are some um events that it can occur more quickly like severe storms uh that can damage the trails or user created damage which is something that we are out there fixing a lot. Um so then alphabetically [clears throat] just going through some categories of maintenance that the county or the city or whomever could maybe expect to do on those trails would include um the back slope kind of settling into the trail over time and needing to be cut back. That's what that photo is showing. uh shows some bench cutting on Pipe Dream Trail constructed trail features. So these would be things like large scale rock ramps, uh armored um ramps, retaining walls, staircases, and then also some wooden structures you might see out there, including retaining walls and bridges. Um and the sort of estimated cycle for maintenance on those, which is about 10 to 15 years. drainage, a little bit of an overview about um some of the different drainage techniques you might see on newer trails versus like older trails up in the Lasal Mountains. Um a little bit of extra information about wayfinding. There is a section in the um sort of general overview about trail maintenance, but for trails that are more backcountry, it's important to have wayfinding because uh people they're not right in an urban area. They're in a more backcountry setting where there's some safety issues involved. So there's a little bit more detail about what sign signs could be

considered and then also some best practices forformational signs um that include you know kind of minimum impact practices but then also trail etiquette that can help um prevent damage and then also prevent some user conflicts. And then there's a section on user created damage which there's a photo there that shows some trail braiding that was repaired. And this just talks about um one of the main categories of damage, which is people going off trail, going around obstacles, passing each other, and um some strategies for mitigating that.

That's great, Maddie. Thank you so much for the summary. Think that'll do it? I do. All right. Really appreciate it, Maddie. I hope you feel better. Thank you. [laughter] Uh okay, great. Are there any questions from any um commissioners about anything that was um added in that little agenda to be included as part of uh what we're what we're recommending tonight? No.

All right. That was easy. This isn't a question about the um agenda, but and sorry if I missed this in the more updated version that we received in the packet, but was curious um if we could revisit some of the public comments that we got in the last meeting about concerns related to speeds on bike paths and how those might be um addressed either in this master plan or in other um kind of planning going forward to address those safety concerns. Yeah, Katie.

Sure. Um, yeah, I talked to our consultant about that and they did add something into the um, uh, the last section in the tool box. There is, um, a set of program and policy recommendations. Um, there are many of them. Um, but I think they added, I mean, it was just a brief mention. Um, but just that we could consider speed limits. Um yeah, I mean I for the o overall uh the conversation we had was that it um how to enforce speed limits on uh bike pass is not as much um sort of the purview of a plan like this and you know more of a uh you know city policy um sort of decision. So we didn't necessarily want to um make try try to be making those decisions that are outside our purview. Um, but those are definitely things that can be sort of added in as sort of casual recommendations in the the policy section.

Great. All right. This is great. I mean, it's it's super nice to have. I know there's a lot of public support. Um, as mentioned, we did get um one public comment via email just in strong support of the the city supporting this um master non-motorized trails plan. um and commending the work that GCAT and the county have done on it. Um otherwise, feedback has all been really great. Again, I think updating having a a future vision, particularly when we are building new trails and working a lot with connectivity um within the county. I think it's really great to see. Any other questions, comments, anything from anybody? Have like two small questions. I'm pretty sure we know this, but my brain has not been working

actually. Uh is the financial impact to the city truly zero? Like I know this is county and grant related I just for the the project that has already occurred. Okay. Um so the city um has an ILA and interlocal agreement with the county um for various sort of like city related projects. Um so that was sort of already dedicated and we did use that for the match. Um so Maddie could probably tell you the exact amount but I think the city contributed about maybe It was a relatively low number, but it was part of our match.

Yeah. So, the um the city interlocal agreement with the county provides uh used to be $30,000 a year to help support trail maintenance activities and trail planning. Um and that was what we used for the match with the UD do grant that gave us $90,000. And then the county's contribution was um staff time. So, that's that's already been committed to the project. That's happened. so far. Yeah. Okay. I just couldn't find it, so sorry. And then um what [clears throat] is the impact to road users while it's being while the project's being done?

Um so in in terms of um construction of the various aspects of the plan. So each um if you'll look through the proposal section um in the matrices that follow the maps kind of right at the beginning um there each project has a dollar amount associated with it. um you know which would be funded by you know however the city chooses to fund it whether that's you know general funds or whether it's grant funded or you know that's that's up to sort of future decision making but if you if you do want to see how much each projects cost that will be in the matrix

right not money t time-wise like how it's going to affect the road users because I know some of this is going to be like on working roads too which is great um just trying to figure out like people getting to work and and tourists and things like that. How's that going to affect that might be too nitty-gritty for right now? Yeah, I mean I would until Yeah,

from a planning perspective I mean I think that you would sort of think about normal construction timelines for um you know anytime a road is redone there is some amount of time that you know an impact on road users that happens from that construction. Um, as for how uh these new projects would be integrated into uh sort of like a timeline for updating roads, that isn't specified in this plan, that would be up to the city to decide in the future. So, you know, one way that it might be done is anytime a road is up for resurfacing anyway. If that road has a recommended um new addition to it or, you know, new bike path or change that would happen as part of the resurfacing, that's one way to do it. Um but we're not necessarily making recommendations about or um sort of committing the city to any way of going about it. Yeah.

The might jump in for an additional piece is in the multiple multiple components of this and how broadly sweeping this plan uh as far as its authorization and uh direction goes is that as properties are developing it will also kick in. So, as that property develops and it's improving its ride ofways uh regulation pass, it will probably comply well will comply with this plan as well as our street standards and everything else. So, I think you've you've answered it well. I won't I won't

it's sort of yeah it depends on the recommendation and you know if it's a place where rightway hasn't already been dedicated then yes absolutely in the city in a lot of situations that rightway already has been dedicated um so it would probably just be more sort of like routine maintenance timelines. So the timing of the plan isn't part of this. It's that's a later decision. Yeah, this is this is more of the guiding document of where and how trails should be implemented. And then there'll be project by project basis and then we'll do likely uh traffic analysis and studies for route and detour routing which is common when we do all of our road improvements. But yeah, that would be not that this plan is an execution plan. This is kind of your your design plan to go and implement.

Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, I'd like to echo what Kaia said when I spoke to people about this plan. For the [clears throat] most part, there was a lot of support and a general interest in the furthered connectivity that this plan was going to kind of set us up for. Um, and I mean with the small caveat of there being some kind of enforcement or otherwise around uh, you know, some of the user groups there. And uh I definitely think that's a conversation the city could have at a later date with PD or otherwise to develop protocol around that. I did otherwise stoked on the plan.

I did see the new ebike out on the trail one recently. I've seen Yeah, I've seen the regular ebike, not one of the the what? 70 mph ones. Oh, the the PD ebike. Yeah, the like they're like purpose-built like law enforcement ebike. That's awesome. Bike cup bike. Sirens and everything. Yeah, it's pretty sirens. They do licking. I think one of them pulled over my friend's kids on those crazy dirt bikes and I was like, "Yeah,

I mean they're no helmet on." And so given the nature of those what is enforcement being a really larger community piece of how effectively we can implement this and then to also shay's point of like how this plan informs implementation yeah

is with enforcement it will be dictated by the council as far as the implementation policies at that time. So this is the plan set and then we'll figure out oh how will we with our levels of service capacities be able to implement that particular strategy. So for enforcement, that is kind of an open book of what land use elements versus traffic um traffic code elements or the PD we're going to be using probably a mixture of those things. But um so that's not to say I think with um Katie's response to that is this plan has that in the toolbox of we recommend you identify these things as a jurisdiction because again this is in great hopes being a um it's not a joint resolution per se but it will be adopted by both jurisdictions and then much like our affordable housing plan which was one plan had ultimately two different versions from the city and county. So those uh specific elements won't have to be spelled in the plan necessarily, but will be as we go to implement policy. So that's both two really good points that we're just I don't want the community to think we're not taking that seriously. It's just not at this stage necessarily.

Is the programmatic plan that sets up future implementation level planning essentially. Since I'm the newbie, can I have another dumb question? Not not a dumb question on the the planning commission agenda piece of this public hearing. The reason I asked about the cost was because it says financial impact NA. Is there is that pertaining to something different than the money that we gave to that doesn't commit any resources of the city in like the plan itself would be my understanding but

even though yeah NA can be not applicable or not available and at that time I just didn't have that number. Um so that's my use of uh NA. Um but there was I guess it's already been committed

and from a broader perspective because that's a great observation for the public as well when you're looking at these agenda summaries. This is a relatively new staff report formatting that we're looking at in that every action our bodies planning commissioner council are going to take. We as staff, our job will be to show how we are advancing the already adopted and approved plans and what those impacts or um those elements that we're addressing from a prior plan are. So that essentially what we're we're narrowing what is coming through our approval series to this has been already authorized. So to that point, if it's going to have an impact, it has to have a number already pre-approved or set to it or it's shown we don't and so that the council the body is aware, oh, we we're extending ourselves to a commitment that we have not already funded. So the NA I think is totally applicable here.

Um but yeah, that's for transparency with our citizens. I mean, even putting something right there that's saying that this was already spent or prior, you know, committed then at least gives some context to people. I think that's a great note. In fact, I'm kind of looking at our strategic initiatives director who can help us, I think, formalize that more broadly through our our staff reports because I think that's true is tying some of those links out.

Um, and just to clarify, in the um very first chapter of the plan, there is a section called uh collaborators and land managers. And the first paragraph describes the relationship between Grand County, the city of Moab, Trailmix uh and GCAT. And in there it is mentioned that the city contributed an ILA that uh funded the MA match for the plan. So that's in there for posterity.

And so if I'm right, sorry to expand this because this is a great I think case study we're going to take moving forward. Where that number I think will be mostly highlighted is when we would have entered into this agreement with the county to go out and get that grant funding plan. So now we're on the back end of adopting the plan. the plan itself doesn't uh have a financial impact analysis for us, but the original authorization should have said, "Hey, we're we're going to commit this 30." So, that would have been an appropriate place back then versus now. But that's a note for I think staff for us to remember. But that for transparency purpose, that's a really good point. Question, Jay. Thank you.

All right. Um, I will close the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. for item 4.1. Um, now we have several options. We can um table this if we have a reason for it. we can advance uh positively recommend approval um of the uh master trails plan. We can negatively excuse me make a negative recommendation if we have a reason as well. But um all that is in the commission agenda summary in the packet as well.

I have a quick correction. Yes. To my recommended motion. Um I was looking for it. [laughter] Um, when said this is going to be a Moab city resolution, not a Moab city resolution. Correct. Yeah.

And this will not go to city council. Will go to city.

Yes. Yeah. So, it'll be a city res city resolution postal plan. Um, since we're I think getting prepped, it appears we're maybe being prepped for emotion while you're looking through that. Um, wanted to speak to the overall and maybe we'll have our consulting group speak to this a little bit. Again, this is not a joint resolution. Um, however, is a cooperative plan adoption. Therefore, our our advancement, which is not a commission's issue, but this is the public hearing where I think it's appropriate to speak to these points, is advancing towards adoption where we're on a different timeline the count than the county as it stands now. Um, we are teed up to adopt prior to the county. This becomes a little bit of and excuse the metaphor, you know, game of chicken of who's we want to ensure we're looking at the same plan they're going to be looking at. They're also going to be doing the same for for the advancement of our plan. However, I think at this point again speaking to the substantial nature of the plan itself, we we've the plan is what the plan is. We can always of course identify particular elements. Um maybe we recommend the natural surfaces maintenance element and they don't. That does not substantially change the plan set. Therefore, uh I think from staff's perspective and consulting perspective, we would recommend advancing this to at least the city council's ability to review and whether they choose to table or adopt, I think we're absolutely within our ability to do so. The further away, and I won't speak to this too much, but the work on this plan is ending at this end of the year. So the further that date gets from adoption to wherever it's getting implemented is the um

least effective

the least effective the least um any any elements being worked on or amended through there are just going to be further deviations from the core plan. Um, so again, if the if the county is choosing to take their time or or wherever they choose to go with this, this is I think a sound plan that from our perspective [clears throat] renews um and revitalize plan that we need to have redone. So it's I think the idea of waiting for a codependency of approval is not necessary. So, I'll kind of put that out there and that's a little bit more again for I think our city council liaison um and council to consider in that way and we'll have when we present this this a similar conversation. I'm sure Michael will speak a little bit more to that. But at least from our perspective when we're thinking about changes tableling or anything like that, please keep that in mind for your motion.

Got it. Okay, I'll go for it. I move to positively recommend approval of Moab City Resolution 172025. Resolution approving the 2025 non-motorized master trail plan as prepared by the Grand County Active Transportation and Trails Department. I'll go ahead and second that. Okay. A motion from me, a second from Jill. Is there any further discussion or questions for the motion that's on the floor?

All right. I just wanted to recognize uh all of Katie's really hard work here and in particular all of the community engagement and outreach efforts. I feel like I saw her at every event over the last year. Um people were always swarming her table to provide input on the maps and all the different forms of feedback that she was soliciting and it really shows in the plan. So thanks Katie for all your hard work and for really um helping bringing bring attention to this communitywide. Absolutely. I will second that. Me too. bunch of times over. No, it's and it's it's it's beautifully done, frankly. So, good work.

Uh, all that said, all in favor of uh the recommended approval of the planning, excuse me, city resolution 702025, please say I. I. Okay. Motion motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Katie. Great work. Thank you. And thanks to the members of the public or the electeds who were here to support uh to support Katie and GCAT's work and thank you Maddie online. Thank you. Thanks all. Bye. Thanks guys. Hope thing goes smoothly at the county. Agreed.

Okay. on to the next discussion and possible recommendation for city of Moab planning resolution 18205. A resolution approving the water shortage response plan is prepared by Moab city staff. Uh and this is action item 4.2. Um this is discussion and possible recommendation for the plan. And then our next agenda item is the code changes that would be accompanying this. Correct. Got it.

Okay. We'll do a quick Where have we been? Where are we going? I'll show you the changes that have been made. Lexi Lamb, by the way, since Sorry. I'll go into the changes that we made since the last time we looked at this um and go from there. if you have any questions. Okay, we started talking about this in March of 2025. It is now December and we're going to have some consideration of resolution and a public hearing of an ordinance to potentially adopt the water shortage response plan. We're talking about it in case we have a short-term water shortage that is not handled by some of our more long-term water planning documents. uh something that would be like an equipment malfunction or a short-term situation.

And what we're looking at today is a plan that would be adopted by a resolution and a code that would be adopted by an ordinance that would point to the plan for the implementation. Uh then um I will jump into what's actually different about this plan from what you'd seen before. Okay. Um, pull this up a little bit. Uh, some of the things you'll you may have noticed is that we moved uh code revisions and some of the enforcement section uh into the actual code instead of having it as kind of a placeholder in the plan here. That's where this happens. And then the major other changes in here um we we're kind of passing through like handling evaporative cooling leaks, things like that which we discussed, but I would say probably the biggest change that most of this is similar to what you've seen is that the indoor access um like flushing toilets, taking showers, some of those things, running water while you're brushing your teeth. Uh we put examples in the plan, but also it's all been moved to voluntary. This was uh kind of advice and compromise with our city attorney for not putting things in code that we have no intention ever of enforcing.

So it's more explicit about what somebody could do to reduce the indoor access, but it's not something that could ever be a violation. Okay. So that is those are the major changes. If there are any other questions uh about things that are in the plan now that have changed since you have or any other broader questions about the water shortage response plan, I'd be happy to answer them. I appreciate how responsive you've been and tweaking this for quite a while. [laughter] I know it's been ongoing and we've sort of like vomited a lot of random suggestions on you over the last six months. So, thank you.

Yeah, I think the plan's better with feedback. So, thank you. So, I know like we gave you a bunch of feedback on the enforcement section and now it just says that.

Okay. Yeah, I can go there. Um, so the enforcement section got shortened and then there's exceptions and enforcement. So, a lot of that was taken out and what we did is we had it point to the code. Um so since the plan would not contain the actual enforcement language essentially when we did that um the next agenda item is the actual changes to code and uh we can talk about some of the provisions that are in there. I I'll hold off on that probably because it's a public hearing that will happen for that but that's true. We did remove some of that in the code. Carolyn, do you have any input questions? I know you've been very um intimately acquainted with this and keeping a keeping a close eye on the improvements as they've happened and updates with Alexi. Is there anything you'd like to add or any remaining questions? No, I think this all makes sense and um the I think cleaning it up to where things belong um also makes a lot of sense and also echo what Kaia said about uh thanks for being so responsive to all of our feedback, Alexi.

There's not a suggested motion. Okay. So, um I think the options here are to forward it with a positive recommendation, table it um with recommendations for us to improve it. Correct. What else you want to take a crack? [laughter] If it's a positive recommendation, you can just basically read the agenda um item there. It's not there.

Yeah. So, uh I would like to forward a positive recommendation to approve Moab City Resolution 18-2025. Uh a resolution approving the water shortage response plan. That work? Yeah, that works great. Uh motion for a positive recommendation for miles. I thought you were going to keep going. I was like, "No, I was like, I really like her." [laughter] I messed them up without your suggestions and that one didn't happen. It was like the male version of Upspeak and then [laughter] I was reading the top of the I like it. Perfect. And then I was like, "Oh, I can stop there."

Um, okay. We have a positive recommendation from Miles. Is there a second? I second it. All right. A second from Shaye. Is there any additional discussion or questions for staff? Any feedback? Thank you, Alexi, for deal digging through all of our comments and putting together a cohesive plan. Um, I actually think it's well written and would be quite useful in the hopefully not uh not non occurrence. Um, but yeah, thank you. Thanks. and and it's it's nice to see us getting um ahead of something. I feel like proactive planning is is is playing catch-up.

Um so it's nice to actually have something that's proactive even if it's sort of like a for a scary reason, but um I'd rather do that than try to catch up later. So good on you. Yep. Um okay. Uh we have a positive recommendation on the table. All in favor say I. I. I I I

I saw Carolyn say I. Um okay. Uh motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Uh on to the next thing which now is a public hearing item 4.3 and consideration and possible recommendation for ordinance 202518, an ordinance amending the text of the MOA municipal code amending section 3.50.180 and Johanna or Alexi, if you can hear me. Chambers dropped off the Zoom.

Are we uh appearing to be functioning again? Yes, I can hear you.

Apologies. Um chambers dropped off of Zoom. We we have not said anything substantive. Uh we're back now. We for reference are on uh item 4.3 which is our uh public hearing recommendation of our code amendments, potential code amendments for the water shortage response plan. I will open the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. for this item. Um, yes. Staff, anything to say, add? Yes. Uh, I think some of the things you've seen in materials is, uh, what happens when we have a special meeting right after a long break, um, from with materials being prepared right before a holiday. Um, but what we've got here is, uh, some recommendations for updating the code uh, cutting uh, section uh, 13 to 0.030. Um, and then starting a new section 13.30. Uh, that would have all of the water shortage information in it. So, it' be pulling that piece out, putting it in a new section, and then adding on. Um, essentially, I'm just going to summarize what's in here. Um the utility director uh if by the triggers that are in the plan determines that we are having a potential water shortage, they could recommend to the city manager to start a or declare a water shortage and then we would go to the water shortage response plan to respond. Um there is also the addition of an option to include language from the plan here for how to terminate a water shortage that was already in the plan. It is now also presented here as a piece of the code. Um we'd made a couple other potential changes due to um language that was kind of being worked as this was going for uh

the planning commission. The accept in case of emergency had originally been in there uh as a to specify how much time somebody would have to fix something that they were in violation of. Um, the way it's been rewarded, it sounds like the city might not pursue violations in an emergency. So, there's a I've shown that here as a potential red line to cut it. And then there's some fixes here in the fine section. The fines were correct in the fee schedule, but when worded for this section, um, it had $300 instead of 250 as the first fine. And then it listed 250 in section B here um as the increase or the the fine for additional. But in fact it should be the same fine as they originally received in that warning stage or in the critical stage. So if they got a 250 and they kept violating in that same stage, it would still be a second 250 a third. And then uh we have it that if somebody gets to a fourth violation that that would be when they would be eligible for a flow restrictor or some sort of interruption of service. So these are the changes to the enforcement which was the question you had. Um so we have fines specified and then there's also an update to the master fee schedule that reflects those fines with increasing severity of the fines as we get into a more severe water shortage. I don't I don't know why my my the document I have on my agenda is not pulling up most of those changes. It's pulling up. Some of them

it's not. Um so the one that was put out initially had um I I was highlighting the change that we suggested that we caught after the the one for review went in. Okay. um like they aren't substantially changing what was intended in the first one is pulling in some language from the plan and then correcting that first fee and then making it match the the proposal uh proposed changes to the master fee schedule. So that's why you're not seeing it. All my notes are useless then. [laughter]

Well, I'm glad you noticed those things too then. Okay. And then beyond those things, it pulled in the language that was also previously in the plan about exemptions and exceptions. So that is the proposed changes uh to the code in order to reference this. Are there any questions, discussion? I know there were some concerns about enforcement. Um would be happy to discuss those as well. It looks like you addressed my current concerns in regards to enforcement at the very least because there was kind of the question that if we are in like truly critical water usage, is there a point at which we can restrict or interrupt somebody's service if they are blatantly disregarding, you know, at the point where we are rationing water, if someone is blatantly disregarding their responsibility, like can we interrupt their service? And it looks like that's in here now. Yeah,

I I love updates to code. That makes sense. Anytime things get smooth and put where they should be, it's great. So, I'm happy that this is just one of those like sort of slow hacking away at making it make more sense and easier to find um for the public. So, I have no I have no feedback. Carolyn, Jill, anybody? No, I'm with you. Make it a little more clear for everybody. It's black and white. Yeah, nothing from me. Makes sense.

Cool. Let's see if there's an emotion. Hey. Hey, there is. Well, kind of. Sort of. I move for a positive recommendation of Moab city number 202518 without modifications to Moab city council. I think that will suffice. Yep. Did I backwards? No, you're good. That was perfect. Um, okay. We have a positive recommendation for the uh uh text amendments as listed. Uh, did did we close the public hearing? No, we did not.

Okay. I will, Shaylee, I apologize. I'm gonna make you do that again. I will now close the public hearing first at 6:57 p.m. Uh, and if you wouldn't mind one more time just for good measure, better wording. No, no, you're good. The last wording was perfect. I move for a positive recommendation of Moab city number 202518. All right. without modifications to the Moab city council. Okay, great. A positive recommendation for the ordinance on the table from Shaye. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay, a second from Miles. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion on the table say I. I.

Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thanks everyone. Thank you for all your hard work on that. Yes, Lexi. You're done with that one. I'm done with that [laughter] one. I'm so things you can do now to do with your time. All right. Um, thank you very much. Okay. On to our next item on the agenda. Uh, our first discussion item of the evening, 5.1, which is discussion of the urban wildlife interface, which is also Alexi again. Hello.

Hi. Uh this one will also involve uh planning staff. I basically wanted to get this in front of you uh because there's a few different steps that are being required by the state to address uh urban wildland interface or wooi which sounds so much more enthusiastic and exciting than it is. I was going to say it says wildlife in the title on the agenda but it probably meant wildland.

Yes, correct. Um so a few things that we have to do. One is moving forward right now it's statemandated. It's an update to an existing plan and it's uh not a land use. Uh so it's not coming through here directly but the city is required to update its community wildlife preparedness plan. Um that is an update that rimtore has been working on and will be at the next city council meeting for them to look at. Uh at the same time, the state uh passed uh House Bill 48 in their last session and it requires the city to adopt a code without modification um from I think 2006, the WOOI code. Uh and then it also is going to require us to adopt a map of where those things will apply. So, we're currently working kind of on the back end um on the city side to do that. It's relatively complicated and a lot of things have to happen at the same time. The state also has obligations under this bill that they're doing. Um and that means that we will have a code and a map. Um and then the state will also have another map that is developed separately for high-risisk properties and that one will also affect uh insurance and it's required for insurance companies to use the state high-risisk map and it will also have an assessor who will assess those properties annually um and a fee associated. Those are responsibilities of the county and the state. The thing that we're going to have to do is adopt the WOOI code um which will come through here in the future and also a map. Now um we're still looking at where those properties will be and we'll be prepared in the future to come with more details on what that map would look like and what properties might be affected. And

there's also a possibility that I think maybe is part of this discussion that is if we want to have something that is in addition and separate from the state while an urban interface code which is something that we need to adopt as is without modification but is also something that was more designed for somebody who had a cabin in the woods um than some of the urban develops we might developments we might be seeing here or the types of fires we might be seeing here. So there is a possibility that we might have a two-tiered approach in which uh we adopt the state uh code and then we have a map that designates properties according to their criteria and then have something that's more preparation for the types of uh wildland urban interface that we see here which are a little different in the desert. You want to add anything to that Cory?

We'll see where maybe the discussion goes. Uh, I think that really that really nicely tees up what will be when we're talking about the land use code update. Some of these tools we're likely going to be implementing that being one of them. Um, is a defensible fire um, how do we say defensible fire interface zone and basically the map that we have to work with right now for the WOOI itself is nondescript. a good example from our attorney with a different municipality. It's showing one of their active recreation parks in the middle of an urbanized area as a hot spot. It's just it's not accurate. So yeah, in this case, our attorney is very defensive against us not over biting with OE designation, we have to be very thoughtful because once much like our FEMA designation with flood planes, once we're established, we cannot pull that back out. Um and with WOOI and the development standards as we saw in the fiscal impacts I think that's really apt the way it's described in fiscal fiscal impacts this is an overlay zone much if you want to think about it like a a flood plane the development standards for that entirety of the property go up quite a bit to the point of like our building official you're we're going to be regulating the type of roof and the type of front door you have even if it is hundreds of yards away from where an actual interface might be. So it's it's very uh it can be a very intensive designation but we are obligated to adopt. Um so we're in this balance of adopting what is accurate um to the map we have which I think we're going to be proposing soon. Um but also understand we want to we want to um go a little bit further which is what we're going to be doing with flood planes with geohhazards with a lot of things in our code update which we can talk about which is to have our own control of how a more sophisticated regulation might work as opposed to a more statemandated situation. So if

we're feeling well we're missing the boat by actually protecting folks that's not the case. we are going to ensure that we're protecting against interfaces, but the WOOI is a it's a much it's a sledgehammer and I think we can get in there with a little bit more of a chisel um c certain areas anyway. So, I think you've teed up really well, but yeah, the the the scale of regulation is both our attorney, our building official are are saying it's not something to be kind of lightly uh designated upon properties. We're going to be really thoughtful about it.

Yeah. Right. And the implication here would be future development. um on our map would have to have everything that's mandated in that code from landscape to roofs like all of it would be according to that code. Um so it would affect super uh future development in those areas and it could make it more difficult in some cases or more expensive to develop in those areas which is as Corey said something that we want to be really careful about doing. Um, other than that, I think we're kind of interested in your thoughts on this like two-tier approach. Um, if there are any other considerations um that we should be looking at as we uh start looking at how to like develop this map and and in what ways we want to uh try to protect the city to be cautious but also um be accurate to the level of risk in the areas that we have. If I mean I was dancing around it. This might be the last thing I'm saying to that is what we're working on right now is that I think we're all familiar with we're we're surrounded by a lot of rock with very sparse vegetation. So even on these maps it's showing some hot spots. We're like there's that's rock that's not landable. Um but beyond that I think we're all familiar there there is a large area and mostly riparian areas that could be of consideration for us. So we're basically viewing that in my and this is not a particular term but two designated areas. One would be essentially our conservated areas, the wetlands. That's one classification we think might apply. And then the other are our creek uh corridors, the floodway corridors. Clearly, that is and we've seen fires that if it were to before our u fire fuels reduction that we were currently working on, it could have I mean that fire really can travel through that corridor really quickly. So, it's one of that's a different type of defensibility than I think we we're distinguishing against those two. But

those are the areas that we're looking at trying to to fortify. So maybe that's not burying the lead too much, but we obviously didn't want to come with a map before we were really more um centered around how the different applications applies to not give any panic as to wait my my property's near this. It's it's one of those tricky things. We need to get give you guys enough information, but also don't want to put out anything that is not ready for the public. Could it have a direct impact on like the existing structures? Yeah. Like so you could potentially be completely changing a current building owners.

It it could mostly the way the code seems to be written is that if you made a change to your structure or something like that, you might have to come into greater compliance with the code. Uh, so it probably wouldn't, as far as we can tell right now, affect people immediately um if they were designated by our our map, but it would affect anything that happened there in the future. um even even if it's already partially developed, it's written almost in a way that's really similar to our landscaping code where anything essentially anything you touch to improve, expand, or otherwise that so you re- roof that roof now has to apply, but maybe you're not doing the front door just yet as the way I understand it from our building official.

Yeah, I think we need to keep reading, but yes,

passively ownorous, but it can be compoundingly ownorous. Um, so again, that's the real u conservative approach of not trying to pull too too many locations. But I think the way my understanding of the wooi designation on a property is is where the interface line becomes of if a property is designated. Say there's a large conservancy area and you're the private property immediately abuing that. Well, if the conservancy area is designated and your property is not, but you are the interface, your property is not held to those standards because it's not designated WOOI, but you clearly share the border of that. And if this is not developing, is there an interface, hence our secondary tool of which is kind of thinking about this secondary tool, which we'll talk about is more of a buffer type tool than a property designation overlay. We're getting a little bit into the weeds, but um

yeah, the what we wanted to introduce and again from our from our uh public engagement side, we thought it was appropriate to enter in with a discussion item, then likely engage with a workshop type item and then move on to public hearing. So, giving both the public and this commission plenty of time to warm to our framing all this. And I feel like I should also say that um you may see or hear that this was supposed to be done by January 1st and that is correct. This came on our desks too late for it to happen by January 1. So we wanted to show that we are putting in the effort to get this done as soon as possible.

That makes sense, right? All right, next item. We'll hear more about it, I assume. I was just curious like obviously this is a state requirement coming down to identify these, but will it have any like positive impact on our community's ability to procure state funding for dealing with these these corridors or otherwise? like, you know, we're burdening some of our homeowners and some of our developers or otherwise, but I'm assuming the city or the county is getting some kind of help as well.

Uh to yeah, to a certain extent. So, the um wildfire preparedness plan that we're required to have makes us eligible to get help if we were to have a wildfire. So, it's required and it also um says that we will do this with uh HB48 and doing a WOOI code. So it is related to the our ability to get assistance if something were to happen and it's also related to mitigating potential damage uh to prevent people from losing their homes or um from neighbors from losing their home if something happens on a neighboring property. So it would also have that benefit that currently um since our general risk for the entire community is relatively low but we have had these happen in certain locations and we do have risky areas. I think it it'll also be an improvement for us managing like helping people manage those risks.

Yeah. The the a really simplified framing of this is not dissimilar than our flood plane. So we we've we flood flood plane management uh from the state uh state office is when we've engaged with FEMA basically we we build to a certain standard and we follow and comply with FEMA in order in exchange for uh support and also insurance deduction. So, it's really similar. Basically, you you're pulling your weight so that the state is aware if something does happen, you have made yourself prepared as possible.

And there's also regulations that um I wouldn't say are not as strict, but there are things that are management actions that you can take that are much easier and streamlined in an area that's designated as the wildland urban interface versus just general something else. Um so if it's in the WOOI uh it for example like hazardous fuels reduction um it becomes a lot more simple um permitting wise most likely and then also has a funding pot available for a lot like a lot of partnerships or if you're trying to get money from the watershed restoration initiative at the state that they certain criteria and it being in the WOOI bumps it up in the ranking. This is actually an intersection with my job job. So,

we do that. We do that. Um, yeah. But yeah, there there are there are benefits to having a nice clear um a clear map that really shows like areas that really do have that sort of level of designation. Cool. I just wanted to highlight some of those while we were also talking to Yeah. But insurance companies come to the table after the Louis map and say we won't insure you anymore unless you do these updates.

I don't know. question. Yeah. At the So the state has a different portion of HB48 is the state and county responsibilities. So the state separate from us but based on the same state provided map is going to designate areas as high risk for um wildland urban interface. This is not something that we determine. It's something that the state is developing separate from this. It's just required by the same legislation. Those properties that are designated as high-risisk by the state will need to have annual assessments um which will be associated with some sort of fee and they also will be associated with insurance. I did get on a meeting um that had a lot of public participation. I think there were like 300 people on Zoomland and then a lot of people in person and there were a lot of concerns from homeowners about the insurance. Um there were a few homeowners on there who had already been affected and were glad that the state was stepping in and there were a lot of people who hadn't been who were concerned. So that is a concern. However, that is in the state map and it's not uh related to ours. So I I couldn't say whether an insurance company could look at ours, but the state is requiring insurance companies to use theirs. Um that said, the way our map would interact with theirs is that likely once the state publishes their map and we're able to look at it, the properties that are designated as high risk by the state are likely maps um or properties that we would want to have WOOI in our adopted map. Um we can decide those things as we, you know, kind of work through our process. Um but that's where we would expect them to match. Uh but then the rest of it would be something that we would determine.

Cool. Thank you. I look forward to seeing more. Yeah, just an intro introduction. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Alexi, for all of the wonderful agenda items this evening. Uh okay. Next uh our next discussion uh I think kicking off a much bigger one in the future. Um 5.2 which is discussion of land use code update. All right. Well the time is here um for I think as it was expressed in the agenda summary as well. Go ahead and join our meeting here. Um we have come to a place uh where staff will be cons uh meeting with our uh awarded consultants Ken and Kee this week to return work uh towards the full adaptation of the code. Uh so where that means is that we've uh fully framed what is the land use code update from an internal perspective and begun adapting content to that. So we're we're building code right now. Getting Kendon Keys up to speed again would allow our uh legal review to um return as well as Kendon Keys to really work their magic. Um, and I I don't mean to put anybody out by saying this, but our code had previously been a bit of a junk drawer acquired over decades. And as we delivered that to our consultants, their ability to sort through that junk drawer uh within the tool that they had rendered a module back to us as their first module that I I I knew was not going to work for us. It was it was too encumbered with things that we didn't want and um things that were missing that we did want. Therefore, we went in house to turn the junk drawer upside down and put things back in very intentionally and then give them opportunity to actually put in those elements um to refine it further. So

from this meeting forward, I believe we're going to have a standing workshop as this is going to be a massive undertaking not only from staff but the commission to ensure that we're working through content in a way that we don't come to you from a singular ordinance context where if we brought this to you in one meeting say hey here's this entire land use code it you would be flooded immediately there maybe we catch a few things. Um, so my approach would I'd far more like to take it section by section as we go. So tonight's overview is really meant to stick to the overall framing, give you the idea of where we're at within that framing, some of the new adaptations we have, as well as um the different types of drafts that we're hope hoping to propose soon. My goal for this is to have at least the the the updated ordinance moving through public process and hopefully getting to where it is no longer in staff's hands but between planning commission and council going back and forth to refine it further so to speak um by mid to late winter like I I I would like to see this adopted before the spring. Uh, it's very ambitious given the delays we've had, the timelines, but we're pretty dedicated. Um, staff's been working really hard on this. Johanna's been pitching quite a bit and we're just going to continue to pedal to the metal. So, I know Carolyn's been like, "Where's this code update? I joined planning commission to see." Well, here we go. So, nobody's saying ever.

Um, Corey's been burning through this today. So, what he's presenting is quite a bit of progress from what's in your packet. So, you can see just how much he's been Yeah. So, uh I'll try to see if I can make this bigger here. Um this does anything. So, if you'll indulge me here, that didn't really help, did it? change the percentage part. Yeah, I was hoping I could just byite. Let's go up a little bit. See what we can get to.

Okay, that'll probably do better. All righty. Um, so this is, and this is not my favorite way of working through code. If you've been up to my office lately, which many of you haven't, uh, I look like a crazy person because my whiteboards have the code on them.

Brainer. It's full-on people have pause when they come into my office. So, this is being put into a form that is um more linear and structured, which codes don't always live that way, at least in my brain. I studied for the bar. So, uh this is the framing that you guys had in your packet. I'm just scrolling through that really quick. Um so, it did cut off. I had noticed we didn't get all the way down through let's see I think we got all the way down into development administration and then it cut off. So this is what I'm hoping to get through tonight. You can see the tabs on the left um are where we're actually taking this first one for example administration general provisions uh and breaking it out into the actual code. So we are building code right now but for today you have not seen this um this represents what I'm calling our consolidated land use code in that really through the initial uh contract we were pursuing a abbreviated version we haven't gone through our general plan update there were many things that we were going to hold off on and through that we were saying let's just update our zoning title that's it title 17 well that is not the entirety of our land use code. U as we've gone through the entirety of our code, all these other titles and sections are key elements of how that land use code actually holistically works. So my hope is to pull those out of those titles and insert them into 17 with a appropriate home. Okay, any questions at this point before I start just walking through what will be basically block levels and then we can slow down on some of the new materials. You know, just the headings honestly are seeing things that I have looked for other places.

Going why aren't these in zoding code?

Yeah, the consolidated like why? Yeah, subdivisions was its own title. How is that not in the lounge code? So anyway, this is our attempt and and all of you have spent a lot of time with our code. So as we get into these workshop workshop sessions and we begin not only looking at framing and u consistency of tools and clarity that is this um clear and palatable for more or less just a regular citizen to to approach. Um it obviously has to be extremely legal and defensible and practical from a staff perspective while balancing approachability and ease of use from a citizens perspective. really they're they are almost opposing metrics of how you construct a code. So that is our our task of trying to function with both. Um uh anything else before we dive in okay as we're scrolling through this and I think the color amendments have been added since then as well. The black text is is mostly representative of what the consultants have already anticipated through their outline. Any purple elements are those that I've seen within their module one outline that were either deficient, missing, or not quite right. So, across the entirety of the code, it's about half and half of purple and black is where I think we're at. But, um, this first uh article is kind of how they're framing it. We're just going to call them sections for now. this first section administration general provisions that is a lot of essentially rules of construction how how this code works um it it's nothing really content heavy from a land use perspective it's basically authorizing us to do all things we do where to do them u and moving forward there's a few elements um under this section that I I do want to kind of look at um so this is the code

as I'm flying through it but at the very and things like formal uh formally initiates how our ordinance actually initiate and begin progress is like well well that wasn't fully fleshed out. So I'm using this as an example of some of these placeholder elements we're going to have to get to later. Again, this is the boring part. I'm hoping we'll move through this into the exciting part. All right, getting into zoning districts and dimensional standards. This is a little bit more of an exciting part where you're going to see an awful lot of purple here. Um, I'm tempted to show a preview of the module one that came in. Uh, I'm not really that jazzed about showing it, but maybe I'll articulate and you'll buy what I'm saying. As our uh, consultants evaluated our code against both our zoning districts, our city, and how we develop, they are being pulled in a direction which is to basically redistrict our entire city, both from a use category, locations, everything else. A great example is our C1 and C2 zones. They're different by one use. Is that re and the use in itself was a uh specific case situation where the public had influence in designing land use code? No. Shouldn't be there. So the consultants looked and they've basitled and reorganized and re uh established permitted uses in these districts. That's their proposal. I am resistant to that and that that should come following a general plan.

Yeah. Update where we actually have I think we have uh tomorrow together which helps

but we would have to go through a more robust process in my mind. So this is something out of plan commission I would like before moving into the discussion with our consultants and it's not really ultimately my decision but admins and the consultants of maintaining the districts we have now um but fixing our code. So, it's it's a half step forward, if you will. We know we do need to redistrict, but that being done in this time frame is going it's going to change everything about everyone's property. That's a massive undertaking. So, I get where our consultants are coming from because they're pulled into a repeal and replace type update, which I would agree with, which is what Norah had been pulling for. It's what I had been pulling for, but that's not what we signed ourselves up for in this instance. So, I'd like to just pause here and get a bit of an understanding. I I'm seeing a lot of heads nod, but is does that seem approachable or is that something you think we could manage in this update? The way I'll just go to this section. So, this is the section two actual code and I have this little section here flagged. So they've built this into the ordinance and again I don't know if I like like love this tools being codified indefinitely is uh as of the effective date of this ordinance land use districts reclass or districts classify the previous zoning ordinance will be either consolidated into the and renamed districts in accordance with the new law of the new zone code. They're they're redistricting. That's my opinion. That's it's an awful big reach

and they don't live here. Like that's no thought to it. Well, yeah, they are they're prof professional planners. They design code for a living. They did come and explore our community. I think it needs to be a much more robust public. Yeah. So, you're essentially reszoning at large giant swap. This one's like, hey, instead of C1 and C2, let's create this mixed use zone and just call it a mixeduse zone. there's at least the way our assessments of properties are organized right now that has zoning implications. I would be a little apprehensive of throwing people in new districts that we haven't fully baked yet. I'm not trying to, you know, if our consultants are watching this or whatever it is, I'm not trying to take away from that option. I'm just saying I don't think we're ready for it in this

Yeah, I I have no doubt that they're probably great recommendations. Um it's just the timeline for me and I do think that is something that needs a lot more public process and probably should be Yeah, really. I mean, think about how much public input we had for the trails master plan process that the county did. I feel like this needs more than that because you're you you are essentially indicating future zone change designations with that. It's kind of a Yeah, it's it's not a future land use map is it's kind of an adaptive land use map, but it is a shift. So, it it's an abnormal Yeah. mechanism because we're in an abnormal situation where we're

our zoning map as it is actually drawn was I think more or less established in the 50s which has great forethought for when the city was in that state of buildout that it was basically very u correct up until I'd say the last 10 years um and then it's really like oh this really doesn't make sense anymore and we know resoning probably does need to happen but in a much more robust Yeah, exactly. But I like I I appreciate that that process has happened in those recommendations and the observations and I I think keeping those in my pocket and not reinventing the wheel when the time comes. Um because I'm

undoubtedly they I think they probably are great nice streamlining recommendations. It really is that time frame. So um I don't think it's appropriate that we do that here. We are fixing, updating, pulling in, making sense. It's essentially like, you know, code reorganization is what we're doing. That would be code and this is actually a great substantive change versus

right is the I mentioned drafts earlier. So, what I what I'm going to be pushing forward and these draft one could be and I think I'm just going to not do draft one in this instance is just title 17 without consolidating the other land use elements. I don't think there's anybody pushing against me to say no, don't bring subdivisions in the land use code. So, let's just we're going to we're going to go to the consolidated land use code. That is option two is now option one. So option one more or less is exactly the way our code works now without the errors or antiquated elements. Yes, it will have new elements. Yes, it will have changed elements. But to the core of what it will not interrupt the development offic's ability to de u advance development applications. If anything, it's going to streamline it, reduce discrepancies and issues um and give them better tools to get this stuff done. So it step one is the same code just better. It's the code we're looking at now just fixed. Draft two, which I would love to propose simultaneously. I think I'm getting to a pinch point of I probably won't be able to have a fully drafted draft two. Draft two was meant to be the allocart options of here are all the things we know we want to do but if they're not um obvious to both bodies for example and this was thrown out in module one so it's nothing I'm baking up it was the the consultants threw out tiny home courts not under a code now it would just showed up in this module one like we haven't we have nowhere to put this what do we this is new but if say that was something we had as a toolbox option that plan commission was like yes city council is yes. Then we just adopt it into this uh draft one if you will allocart options on the side. What is a very likely scenario given the the time crunch is we're going to be looking at

um a framed toolbox. So you probably could you could say we're directing we're going to adopt draft one and we're going to direct staff to go build out these tools and come back to us with an update to the to the grander update which wouldn't be a big lift. In fact, it's a pretty clean way to go. But I was really hopeful that I could have something just ready basically for the public process that it's just brought and consolidated in. We'll already have a home for where these things ought to go. Just needs to be plugged in for the things that are clearly obvious to the community.

So that's when I'm talking about drafts. That's what I'm referring to. Um so for the most part, a lot of our workshops and discussions going to be organized around draft one, which is same code just improved. Um, so with our districts, the only other thing I might ask of you is these are non common descriptors of districts. Um, the county for example has far more common or regionally state adopted type district nomenclature. I have some fear that our consultants actually adopted a lot. So we would the city would now have RR highway commercial. I'm a little nervous about having mirrored co mirrored district names with different regulations. We've already seen that with

M a bunch of things. I think we need to have distinctly different district names to identify this is a different jurisdiction and a different code entirely. I think especially can you imag this this property from RR to RR but they're totally different uh totally different uh zoning designations. So for me the the transparency there while maybe some of them are more accurate by descript rural residential that's a great I mean a great app nomenclature for that versus residential agricultural zone which is our equivalent

it's a little clunky rural residential is a lot more common but I think our kinder uh jurisdictions we're just too close and we have too much interplay to do that. So unless the commission feels differently I can work with them to pursue that or a version of that. Yeah. Um, I don't love I'm not attached or love these district names. I think in fact we could look at releabeling them, but that and that's all we'd be doing is relabeling them instead of totally redesigning the district. I think the Rs and the C's make sense as they are for now. I think if we we did the more robust process, I do think we redistrict, we rename, we do the whole thing, but why not just bundle that together later on?

Yep. And I for what it's worth I think honestly just the caveat of city in front of the things makes sense. It's city rural not city rural res that's a contradiction but like well but but yeah city city city sing it could be distinguished. So that could be a good a really good compromise even in this draft potentially. This is where I think our administration was way more on board with this consolidated. I'm like if unless there's something distinguishing I don't love it. That could be it. So, I'll propose that as maybe an idea like CRC, City Resort Commercial. Yeah.

Yep. Um, okay. Thank you. That was helpful. So, within the the districts, this is relatively new. We do have a FW floodway zone already established. Um, we we already do have these overlays uh for PUD pad. But what we've done here, and you'll see this as we get lower in the framing, is especially with land designations or overlays or special districts where like we were talking about with WOOI or our defensible fire interface zones, having those distinguished on a map uh and consolidated mirroring more or less what we do for flood plane uh development is it's an upshift. It is more processing. It's more work for us and for the applicants, but it is far more sophisticated and accurate to ensure the appropriate properties are doing the appropriate levels of development. Um, so that's something that will be a bit new like a cliff zone for example. Right now we have this hillside ordinance, hillside development ordinance that was a draft from Washington County that we adopted the draft, not even their final version. It shows um and so now we have a legislative process to allow people to build on slopes greater than 25% which is or excuse me 15%.

Which is a majority of our valley to be honest. So have we been observing that historically correctly? No. And so now we're in the policy u pinch

where basically what I'm saying is no let's just establish a cliff zone much like the floodway. If this is a cliff it's over 45 degrees you're not building on it in the city. It's a non-build uh designated zone. Um, however, if you get to a hillside zone, we're going to move that entire process from a discretionary legislative process with city council to administrative standards. You can build in this zone. Just build in these ways much like you would a flood plan. So, this is indicative of a lot of the change that we're going to try to push the administrative process of development as opposed to legislative discretionary process. The sad part is that means we're going to see you guys a lot less. But when we do see you, we're really going to need your opinion on things. Lots of exceptions. I think what we just saw our ex exemptions exceptions tool uh gives great flexibility to property owners which what we're doing with our code as well is filtering this through the idea of uh arbitrary land use regulations where if there's not a direct impact therefore the regulations are offsetting or maintaining mitigation they don't need to be there u as far as how aggressive we want to go with that that's a little bit up to you guys. Um is you can have totally legal regulations of what I've affectionately called in this arena as our overzealous HOA type code versus like health, safety, welfare. That is our job. Everything else should be basically property rights forward. Um so we're going to be filtering a lot a lot of this code and in those areas where we we are going to have to have some arbitrary code. Great example are signs or fences. Fence, we'll go with fences for now. If we just said, "No, you you have fences. Do what you want to do with your fence." There will be somebody someday that puts in a 50- foot tall fence. He engineers it. They have NASA money and they put in a 50 foot tall fence. If we don't have any code around

that, let them here's here's what they're doing. And we have zero ability to uh prohibit that. So, we will have to have code. But so every time we're drawing a line when it's kind of an arbitrary type like is 8t good? Is 9 ft? I don't know. It's it's arbitrary. We're picking off of a best feel. There will always be a specific situation or condition where a property comes in like hey this really doesn't make sense or apply to our situation. Hence an exemptions and exception section basically tied to every single one of those more arbitrary elements. If it's health safety then it's health it is or it isn't.

Yeah. Um, but we're going to have to have both in our code. So, with that being said, I know our commission was considering getting away from our exceptions process to make things more administrative. I may push back and say, "Hey, this is a great tool for certain things, not all things." Um, so that is our zone districts and special overlays. Any questions so far? No. I'm not going to let this go past eight, by the way. We're gonna keep this rolling. I promise. Yeah. All of our workshops are going to be 30 minutes hard stop. At every single meeting though, we're going to have workshops. So, how we doing? I'm like, yeah, you got till 50. Okay, I like that. Half an hour. I have a question.

First, our kickoff. What's that, Caroline? Um, I hear you on the, you know, not wanting to rush through something as dramatic and important, um, as a repeal and replace for zoning, but I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about whether the kind of two-stage approach has any potential to either dilute the impacts of the first round of changes that you're proposing or kind of create extra work or redundant work in the long run.

I think at least the way I would respond to that question because that's a great question. I think I'm understanding it fully is uh versus reexplaining it. I think you explained it for me is I'm going to be recommending and advancing those changes that would eliminate a redundancy element. Hence the consolidated land use code. Hence, I I'm proposing a lot of things in this draft we're looking at that were not in the original purview because I know they're they're um uh excuse me, the word they're they're oh there's great words. um we we are going to be going here so why not move there now to um clarify and consolidate the way our code system works. Um, so the zoning districts for instance being one of the more robust bites or many of our toolbox elements is I think it is so vital that we get this draft one done with the the fixes that I'm going to kind of put myself out there and say this is not in our code now but it is essential to reducing our risk from a development review perspective.

Um, so I'm going to these bodies saying it's not the same code but this is where we have to go. There will be a whole series of things that are not an immediate risk or a vital improvement to our code. Those are the ones I'll put in more of an allocart. And if you guys remember from a ways back, we had our cons um you guys never met with our consultants. I don't think it's just staff. Okay. Y a few of us did.

Yep. is we were we were essentially vetting if there was any code topic that we couldn't all agree on within two minutes, we immediately flagged that for that's a later discussion because we have to keep this clean and elegant. We don't have the time to debate about a particular detail in one of these things that will kill this thing in committee so to speak shortand. So I don't does that make sense as to how I'm designating what to push and what not to push. Yeah, I think so. I just I also I know this has been a long time coming and there's been changes in the process over the years as well, but I'd hate to put sort of like an unnecessary sense of time pressure or rush at this point after, you know, laying some careful groundwork through your your work and your back and forth with what the consultants are taking on versus what city staff are taking on.

I hear you. I so I hear you better of like let's not rush certain things versus what I was kind of answering the question too is is actually indeed rushing a few things. Is that what I'm hearing? Um yeah. Yeah. I think I mean we've talked about not rushing the bigger steps especially where public input would be really important. Um but I'm just hearing you say a couple times like needing to to move things ahead or or work on the shorter timeline. And um yeah, maybe I'm not seeing the kind of behind the scenes where the time pressure is coming from or whether it's just the recognition that this process has already taken a little bit longer to get to this point than originally anticipated.

Yeah, I think for me the biggest rush a a to the fact that we've been wanting this for a long time of course um is that we have uh awarded a contract to a consultant that I have obligations to them. They've been kind enough to advance our contract beyond what the original elements were. So, if we want to continue with Kenny Kee, we have to we have to giddy up. Um,

which I do like Keny and their ability to to work through the code. I like what they've done uh from a stylistic perspective, but the the the toolbox they had to work with of the actual content was so bad. So, one of my examples is, you know, as we're looking at PAD, it's something that's been on the council's agenda forever and we want to redo the PAD, that's not this tool right now. That's something that I think we we would be happy to look at, but we need to not rush those types of elements, even though from in-house I think we could if that was a focus. Um, can't ever retire from the planning commission until we fix the Yeah, that's right.

Putting that out there. If you want to get rid of me indentured service the time Frank or draft one we'll talk about spring that's what you're saying by the spring. Yeah sure. Yes. I I don't I think Ken and Keith right now they're basically willing to stick with us but they have they want to take on other clients and so us holding them up Yeah.

is a problem for them. Yeah. Um, so my um us getting through to an adoption in spring actually I think I mean we're a year late but from when I took over for community development this was where our timeline was from the very beginning. So I I've been postponed and then I'm rapidly getting us back on track to time frame. So this was more or less it was meant to be I think kind of November December

um within 2025 so pushing us to February March at latest I I think a couple month delay considering everything we've been through is pretty reasonable get back on speed. Um whereas especially Kenyon Keith was not ever committed to some of the improvements I'm making. They were just meant to be updating code. So we're we're going a little bit even beyond what they were supposed to be doing. Well, and I will say from from the planning commission perspective too, I see this being really beneficial to to giddy up on. Um uh [clears throat] that we we have granted a lot of exceptions that are logical things that we've constantly said this is going to happen in the code change that's forthcoming. We're going to fix this. So this is just a matter of course and we don't have to do like parking exceptions or you know things like that. So granted that that likely is not included in this, but I think there are enough things in the code where they don't make sense and we have to note that quite a bit that I see it as as beneficial for making it easier for applicants, easier for staff. Um to to not have to sort of continue to allude to, oh, we're fixing this right now, but this is something that's going to happen across the board when we fix our code. Yeah. Um,

yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, I I will try to move through the rest of this framing pretty quick, but let's do slow down if anything grabs anyone's eye. So, moving out of zoning districts and dimensional standards to land use and standards. This was a really interesting area when we're actually getting into what their module one was. Um, maybe I'll share a little bit of that. This is actually one I was like maybe we will dive a little bit into the code today. Um but more fully baking out not only how this looks in the code from a matrix perspective. So you can say I'm in this zone what can I do there will be a matrix that tells you exactly that very similar to how the county has their matrixes set up or I want to do a restaurant which zones could I do a restaurant in. So it's very user friendly the way we organize these systems but also we have the opportunity here to and this is where the consultants they they don't know our community as much we can add those layers of uses outfitter for instance in their module one it's still just outfitter singular use we know not all outfitters are the same in fact this is one section I do think I want to pull from them a bit more is even in their commercial section they still have retail, you know, we can go to it, but you know, retail service providers and other and it's a massive group. So, I'm like when we're trying to attribute which zones can have that group of uses because it's going to be blocked as that group of uses, is it articulated sophisticated enough? I would like to think of this code update as also being much more surgical and sophisticated as to how uses work. we talk about a lot with parking for example is well with this parking example it's not built off of it's one I've said our code is not sophisticated very often um off of occupancy like from a building code how many people can you fit in your space and we're like sorry it's just by use well we should be doing that with our zoning districts as as well

um which districts have similar type occupancy builds um so that it makes sense that they're all having to build to basically the same standards we're not

mixing matching Therefore, when we go through changes of use, we're seeing this crazy juxosition of this building is built this way, but if they want to change the use, they have to build a totally different building to move from tenencies of use. So, we would build districts a little bit more aligned with what the types of uses that can move in and out of those buildings are. Um, so getting us more attuned to the building code. So, residential, public, civic, commercial, industrial, open space mix. I did add in agricultural here. This is actually one I think not that we have much of it

but it is a important thing I think to still distinguish uh use tables. Um maybe I'll just Oh somebody say anything we good. No I was just side conversation with Shay.

Okay. So here you know here's how they've kind of grouped it civic. So here you know daycarees and then within daycare there's all sorts of daycarees adult daycare, child care and so it breaks it down really nicely but we definitely will have to spend time with that one to wrap our heads around it. Uh development review standards procedures and bodies. This gets far more articulate and robust in how we go through things. Uh it spells it out really really clearly. Um, so I'm again I'm just going to kind of scroll through these slowly. Um, where we're grouping things all together in the same place. A really good example is we have a outdoor lighting ordinance right now that's just it's an ordinance that sits on its own. It's its own chapter. It's its own thing. This would sit into here are development standards that apply to all developments and here's where and how they work. Um, same thing with our landscaping ordinance.

Well, it's nice because essentially the applicant or prospective developer or homeowner or whatever can go to that section in the code and it functions as a checklist. Yes. That they go down and then it's not, oh, I missed that random thing that was somewhere squirly. It's literally, okay, I got to do this for lighting. I got to do this for landscaping. I got to do this for my fence. You know, like that kind of stuff. All that I'm I'm super excited to see these kind of larger section this this article four section section four that we're looking at it is just exactly that here here are the standards that will apply

here are the procedures you go through and who's here's who's in charge. So it will read very um linear or flowchart progression style um again for not only [snorts] citizens to be able to work through it easily but also staff we just we move through this lens of the filter of it work through the process. That's great.

Okay, this is where it gets a little bit new is environmental management. This is gonna be uh something you see Ken and Keith was already aware of this how we're going to propose it in black. I've adapted it a little bit in that with our flood damage prevention. Okay, we're going to go about it mostly the same way we go about flood standards right now. It's just organized a heck of a lot better. We're also going to be likely adapting adding this fire damage prevention system where we have our two um our two elements where we have our defensible fire interface requirements. So, a different type of zone and then our wild and urban interface. I've talked to our engineers about this. Same thing for geological geological hazards. Just the same way you'd be building buying into a property that's in a flood plane. There's a lot of conditions you need to be knowing when you're buying that property to build that you're in a flood plane.

A lot of people don't realize they're in a geohhazard zone until they go to pull a permit and they've already bought this property and they have to over excavate uh their entire property because the soils are soluble or some other crazy geohazard. And then storm water. This is a really u apt element that we're going to be looking into adding is distinguishly different than our flood zone. So when we're talking about floods, we often associate them with the creeks uh and massive amounts of flow through those corridors and the floodways. Storm water obviously a really high level or broadly touching element that if an event happens over town this a massive amount of water that's being consolidated in these unique events isn't what I consider a flood situation it's a storm water management situation so how we're dealing out with our desert aoyos our um existing day daylighted trenches and drainages and systems those are not flood elements, but this would help um give the the city a lot more ability to to work with folks a give them flexibility of actually how to develop because our code right now is mostly policy and adopted standards. It's not actually a full process. Hillside development again super super refined version of what we have to basically administrative standards development review procedures. This is going to be Johanna's bread and butter of revitalizing her systems. um where an applicant again looking to applicant forward can look at this code and know exactly what steps where and what the standards are start to finish of any particular uh process public noticing public hearings what you know from a pre-development application or preapps completeness they all these questions how long does it take for me to get an application through it will be right here you won't well obviously hold

people's hands through it but there will be codified elements to to support um development applications. This is where we're going to basically ensure we have an appropriate procedure for every section of code we have right now. And land use is one of the best ones where we have uses in town that don't have a defined use in our code, let alone a definition for that use. So we have a bunch of missing things alto together. We even have processes. So we have clearly we we have town homes. We don't have a town homes section of code. So, how have we been adopting town homes for the last 10 years? Um, so we're going to rectify all of those elements as well. Platting, special, supplemental, development administration. This is getting a little bit more back into legal categories of how the code is managed and administrative application of the code. Uh, development review bodies articulating who, what, and how they're effective. non-conforming elements which will be a really big one I think for us to handle as we would like to and one of this is one of the pitches I've said especially with our changes of uses our code right now is designed around the idea that people are building on flat dirt from scratch and that thing will never change or be amended through the process that's the way our code's built which is just the flat opposite of what we have a lot of stuff that's built out not in flat or typical standards and it's changing all the So, if the commission and the council are, this is where I'd like you to start thinking about these things open to the idea of adaptive reuse or uh infill being a more premier option for us. We are going to have to significantly adjust the way our non-conforming standards exist because basically now it's if you have any element your structure that's non-conforming and you

touch it, you have to bring the structure into conformity uh through that conversion the nonconformities or continuation expansions. And basically it's this double-edged sword that protects you indefinitely if you never want to change. But if you want to change anything, change use, change structure, change anything, you're stuck. Our community is just not built for that. So, we will have to spend a lot of time, I think, being really thoughtful about this

because what that will be is concessions to our code. That's what that's going to be is they're not building to the full compliance of our code. So, what levels are we okay with them building to or not? It was always said we're stepping over good because we can't get to perfect. That was mentioned in the building office often somebody come in with a really really creative and totally um appropriate plan for how to use this old building or whatever it is, but because our code is it's not perfect, we'd have to tell them no, you can't. You have to make it perfect. Is that still the way we want to go? Obviously have to maintain health safety standards, but a lot of our our zoning code, say building height or say something that is in that arbitrary realm. Are we willing to concede some of those things to make allow for more flexible, creative, adaptive uh redevelopment? Okay, enforcement and then on to interpretations, definitions, six minutes over, but that is basically the code in a nutshell.

Um, way way back.

So, I'm, you know, I know this is just a fire hose of stuff and as I'm even reading it to you, I'm like, none of this makes sense because these are single words that represent paragraphs of code. Um, but this is why I I want us to start. This is the code. So, as we start thinking about it, handling it basically article by article and then where we can go through, you can do the homework, see if there's anything that's not driving with you. Um, as we go through some of those workshops, I think we're going to have to skip ahead in this process and that I'm going to need to take a lot of these things through legal review before we're like, oh, let's talk about the language here. So, I might skip down to the things that are a little bit more in the realm of you're speaking to the community's needs. Um, that could be more defined uses, things that aren't in this code that we would want to look at. Um, I think that's really going to be the thing I think we we end up spending the most amount of time on is how these uses work within groups and then where those uses ought to be. So, we're not redistricting, but we are going to be adding and subtracting a bunch of uses from different zones, which will create non-conforming issues for folks, but there's already a lot of non-conforming issues anyway. So, we're going to probably add uses to places they ought to be and subtract uses from places that they shouldn't be, but maybe somebody's in one of those zones right now. So, it it's it's not going to be perfect for everybody, but it is going to be generally a massive step forward. Okay, that's what I've got for tonight. Um,

all that said, I do want to commend staff also. I mean, not really a nudge, but just a commendation. I know how hard that is that accurate noticing is going to be really important for all of that because if we are having anything that's going to impact somebody's valid existing rights on their property, I want us all to just make sure we're being really careful. This will be a weird one that um we're clearly communicating in the meetings on our end. Um, for sure. Yeah. That way. Making sure that it's really clear that like someone knew that that could potentially impact something and they had the opportunity to come weigh in. Totally. Yeah.

And this is where it I think even tonight if we can start every night making this call to action of this is going to affect you. So, I'm not as up to date with how alleged reclassified noticing. Typically something like this would be considered a general amendment. Therefore, a class B, which means our standard public notice. It has public hearing, but it just goes out in the paper. We notify it in the website.

But there's also a statute that was just added which puts us into a different category of written notice delivered or delivered by mail. So if we're adjusting a zone that affects that property, we have to write written notice, which I think this debatably would dupe that is it is affecting your land use rights for for that zone. We would have to mail a letter to every single property owner, occupant, and tenant uh registry for that property. So that's about 15,000 letters, if not more. Um, so I don't know at what point we're going to be like, state, that's a financial burden. We can't do that. Um, because you put a number of cents per stamp, per envelope, per staff time to every one of those letters. But to your point, and I think Ka's kind of hitting the nail here, is the public process for this is essential. to what degree technically we need to go to those lengths. We'll go through whatever hoops we need to do. But um yeah, a land use overhaul. I can't imagine it'd be that ownorous that they're expecting us to mail every single tenant of every property

to do that every single time we discuss it. Uh every time there was a substantial change with something like this, there certainly could be. We could take it through planning commission. We're all happy. Get some city council. We've seen this before. They kick it back. We don't want to do that. we're gonna do this other thing that would likely have to go through the entire process again. Told you. Um I'm not thinking about that part just yet. I'm gonna That's That's February's probably written a note. We'll ponder on it. Yeah. So,

I'm definitely thinking there's a lot of people I know that don't that feel like they don't ever know what's changing because they don't read the certain ways that you know the same divulging information. Definitely like typically it's like oh there's a a zone change that has a a standard typical class B. Most people I I missed it like or I didn't get it. It's like well it was on all the places that had to be including places we don't have to Facebook and other places.

Um but something like this is substantial enough I think it you know we'll do mailers on people's um utility bills. We'll do we'll pull out all the stops that we can, but at a certain point we're if if we're Hey everyone, this is the new land use code. It's a massive deal for your property rights. I would hope they come to the table.

I mean, and especially with our draft one that it's being substantially the same document. I can't imagine anybody's going to totally be uncomfortable with that. But there are going to be people that, hey, I I have this use in this zone and maybe it doesn't fit, but that is my use. that don't want to become non-conforming. So, we have something planned. We're just going to have to work through and understand. Hopefully, they'd actually come speak to us about it. But, we know that's going to happen. Have someone real mad in 10 years. None of us will be here. This is where again I from our process, I'm hoping to get us February into that realm and then as long as it takes for it to go through, that's how long it's going to take.

But I want to be through the staff obligations up to that point. Hopefully. On that note, a really good way to know exactly what's going on and stay really involved is to join the planning commission. Speaking of that, why don't we make right now? We're going to have an opening because one of our members is graduating to legislative power from January. So, here's my segue to future things. Awesome. I mean, I think we're wrapping up. Um, yeah, we end up,

but if you're on the planning commission, it's a really good way to know everything that's going on. Stay in the know. You get these great emails from Johanna who asks if you looked at the agenda. [laughter] You'll also be a hand in this. Uh, whoever this next planning commission person is will be able to design the land use code with this commission. So, that's a pretty big pretty big deal. Shameless promotion. Sorry, Caroline. You've been on here for a year with the same promise. Uh, somebody's can join right now and get same benefit. Um, it's a slow burn. That's how [laughter] they get you. Watch out.

Uh, all right. Thank you. I'm I'm excited. I just looking over the headings, it's it's pretty cool to see substantively how everything is in there and just all going to end up where it needs to be. I'm really excited. Love what we saw like earlier where we're fixing code on. This makes a lot more sense. I hope it just feels that way. Y every time we open it, which is which is fabulous. So, thank you staff for for undertaking that massive massive lift and and keeping us moving on it. Um, we'll do our we'll do our part to make sure we can get things across the this initial finish line. This will be a great team to do it, too. I think there's a lot of Sorry, Miles. It would have been great to have you on. You'll be on the

You're have you have to be at the council end of just trust them. They just did it. Don't mess with it. It's fine. They thought through it. Uh, I have a sneaking suspicion you may end up as the planning commission liaison as well. So, if I had to guess. Um, cool. Future agenda items. Uh,

yes. Uh, so we have a continuation of presentation on the map for the urban wildland interface. Um, next meeting. Um I also just uh public noticed a public hearing uh 10 days uh till our next meeting guys um for uh development agreement um and and a workshop for the land use code. [laughter] Um, so I'll see you guys all December 11th. Great. That's what I have.

That's what I have. And then we'll we'll also be setting our uh schedule for 20 26. Very nice. We have like three hours. Move it up. Looks like it's midnight. which [laughter] could be at like 4:30 on Wednesday if we want. That is something we could talk about. I think the commission has that option. I think it's typically meant to be we're obviously trying to cater to the public that that's typically an off work hour at 6 gives them that, you know, opportunity. But

it's not essential at least 5:30. I will say I'm one of those people who needs that hour after work to get my life in order. Uh, okay. Wonderful. We do have another meeting. We're not saying goodbye to Miles yet. Uh, I will adjourn this meeting at 8:06 p.m. Carolyn, thank you for tuning in for participating remotely. Um, and thanks everyone. Have a good night. Thank you. Thanks. B.