Moab City Planning Commission – July 10, 2025

City of Moab Regular Planning Commission Meeting – July 10, 2025: Video automatically transcribed by Sonix

City of Moab Regular Planning Commission Meeting – July 10, 2025: this mp4 video file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Cory Shurtleff:
Hey, Scott. Can you hear us now?

Scott Irvine:
Yes. I can hear you.

Cory Shurtleff:
Awesome. Thank you.

Kya Marienfeld:
Perfect.

Johanna Blanco:
Okay. We are recording and live.

Miles Lofton:
Are you recording?

Kya Marienfeld:
Yes. Okay. So, I'm not I'm used to seeing the little Thing up there. So, just wanted to make sure. Okay. Awesome. I will call to order this 07/10/2025 meeting of the Moab City Planning Commission at 06:05PM In chambers this evening, we have city staff, Cory Shurtleff, Johanna Blanco, Kelsey Garcia, planning commissioners, Carolyn Conant, Jill Tatton, Miles Lofton, myself, Kya Marienfeld. We also have our city council liaison, Luke Wojciechowski, Alexi Lamm, and guest?

Kya Marienfeld:
Savannah Thomas Dorigo. I'm speaking with Alexi.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay. Great. Someone who we will meet for one of the agenda items in Alexi's office, and it doesn't look like anybody else in chambers this evening. First item of business is citizens to be heard. I don't believe we received anything via email or the city's comment portal, and there do not appear to be anyone here in chambers Precision is to be heard so we can move forward. Next on the agenda is item three, approval of minutes from our June 12 regular meeting. If anyone's had a chance to look those over, if there's amendments or notes, Otherwise, we can entertain a motion to approve those.

Cory Shurtleff:
It was a nice short one.

Kya Marienfeld:
It was a nice short meeting. Yes.

Cory Shurtleff:
You didn't look at

Miles Lofton:
Yep. I'll go ahead and motion to approve our June from our regular meeting.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay. Motion to approve the minutes from Miles. Is there a second?

Jill Tatton?:
I'll go ahead and second that. Alright.

Kya Marienfeld:
A second from Jill. Any other notes, discussion, anything? Alright. All in favor of approving our minutes from our 06/12/2025 meeting, please say aye. Aye. Minutes approved unanimously. Moving right along. Our first discussion item of the evening, which is four point one, a workshop returning to our discussion on EV readiness ordinances. I would assume this is you, Alexi, and your new colleague who were excited to meet. Yes. Could you share the link with me to share my screen? Absolutely. Thanks. Okay.

Alexi Lamm:
So today, we're coming back to the EV readiness ordinance, and we're gonna just go straight to the text. I have three main points of discussion, which are considering individual versus shared parking situations, going back to the single family incentive, and then a little bit of discussion about the approval review and exception process. Getting in the meeting.

Cory Shurtleff:
Okay.

Alexi Lamm:
Alright. Let's start right here. So here, we have the required electrical vehicle charging infrastructure where it is going to apply. And the following standards are applying right now to multi household dwellings with three or more units, regardless of the parking setups. And, Corey and I had met with our building official, Barry, and he brought up, in particular, situations where people are in townhome type situations where parking is individual. So we can leave it the way it is, as written, and people can come through as an exception. We can change this so it applies to either more units, like five or more, or we can change it for a shared versus individual situation. But it's a point of discussion, and I wanted to know what you thought about it. And, Corey, feel free to jump in with any more context on these. Sure.

Cory Shurtleff:
While it seems like you're considering, maybe I will jump in for a little bit of context, is where we are balancing the, what we'll call, triggering mechanisms for this approach is trying to take into account multiple factors. One being how not just our land use code might affect, but also adopted building codes or other types of state regulations to ensure that it it seems and complies equitably across when these types of things kick in. American Disabilities Act, the ADA provisions, particularly for parking, were a good example of when when those types of provisions are kicking in, it's usually because that is the standard at which there's clearly a common interest in them developing to this additional or higher standard of ADA. That seems consistent with what it is we're trying to approach here. So more recently within the state of Utah and their legislative updates, the classification of when particular codes apply, in shorthand, the international residential code versus international building code, the IRC or IBC. Typically, the IBC being your large scale development. We'll kinda call it that. And the IRC being residential style development for the most part is they've actually moved that boundary a little bit. So whereas our municipal code kicks in for a multi household or an apartment style project is three or more, state the code has actually adjusted that to a four unit townhome. It's actually built under the IRC now instead of the IBC. Major change for them is sprinklers for the most part, but it also does play a factor into when ADA and other requirements kick in or at least not fully compliant ADA units, but a percentage of the project going towards ADA what's the right term here? Some of this terminology we're using starts with the c. It's not readiness, but I think we'll move on. So varying levels.

Alexi Lamm:
It'd be capable of that. Capable.

Cory Shurtleff:
Thank you so much. So you may just may not be a fully handicapped bathroom, but you have the grab bars. It's a stark type of a thing. Anyway, so what we're looking at here is in this contemplation of where our threshold should kick in, giving the more fluid metrics happening outside of us, is townhomes. Typically, townhomes will often have their own garages, private garages, basically constructed from an individual standpoint like a single family house, and oftentimes, they're even referred to as single family attached. So should we be considering those type of developments given they're kind of more of a private intended style dwelling versus what we're trying to capture, which is you're moving into a a dwelling situation that's typically multi household that you don't have control over. Well, this townhome, you very much would. You typically have direct ownership, in fact. But not to belabor it too much, hopefully, you've had time to review or at least find the code that we're talking about, is I'm almost wondering at this point, and this is where we left off. I'm not sure we are concerned about that because, again, as concerned about pushing the parameter further away, moving that trigger further away, so to speak. I think keeping it directly to the land use code in this instance. So say somebody comes in and they do a site plan approval of planning commission for a four unit apartment, this would kick in. If somebody came in with a four unit townhome, what we are contemplating is should it kick in? I'm gonna say, yeah. It should kick in even then, even if it's individual ownerships, even if there are garages. These, again, to that higher standard, that's where we believe multi household begins. Somebody people will be moving into these. And at least as far as this threshold's concerned, we're trying to move this needle of the end goal of emissions across the entire board, but this first step seems to me acceptable. That was a lot moving really quick again.

Miles Lofton:
And are we gonna be asking these these townhomes to get to the point of EV capable or EV ready?

Alexi Lamm:
This is how we have it written right now is we have 10% EV capable and 10% EV ready.

Cory Shurtleff:
Okay. Scale to the unit scale.

Alexi Lamm:
Scale to unit—

Cory Shurtleff:
Ownership, I guess, ownership overlay is we're saying that's irrelevant. It's the standard of construction you're building at that a number of units. That's what matters, not the ownership overlay that can be applied and also removed in theory. We're not using that mechanism. We're using what it is you're bill how many units and what it is you're building is the the trigger.

Miles Lofton:
Wondering, like, what the practical result of this is gonna be if we, like, if we hold firm. And, I mean, of course, they can pursue an exception, but let's say we hold firm on this. We say that four units is going to trigger this mechanism, then does that mean one of four units will at least need to be EV capable or EV ready? Like, to to what So four degree is the practical application of this in the smallest form. Like, if they just barely clear the trigger, what are they gonna have to do?

Alexi Lamm:
Right. So 20%, they're gonna have to well, let's let's go to down here.

Miles Lofton:
I was trying to find— Yeah.

Alexi Lamm:
Alright. So we have 10% EV capable, 10% EV ready for a total of 20. And then we have things with fewer than 10 parking spots are going to provide one. So in a place with four units, they would probably choose to go by units rather than parking spots, which they optionally could have more. So they would have a minimum of one. And it it would be kind of like Any any construction where one unit might have a jet tub or four bedrooms or whatever, this would happen to be the unit with an ev spot

Miles Lofton:
And it would have to be brought to the standard of ready.

Cory Shurtleff:
It's ready.

Miles Lofton:
Not installed, just ready. Ready. K.

Alexi Lamm:
And if they have a garage, it's relatively inexpensive. Yeah.

Cory Shurtleff:
Right. And, again, this is new construction. But to your point, I think this is something we also considered of we're kinda on the fence of where this trigger, should we make an additional threshold trigger specific to an ownership overlay or just keep it standard to the development? When we're wavering with that, we said, we do have this option for an exception route, which could profile look. We're we're doing it in this way where maybe everything is at a different standard. Can we just do it to the all of the units to the standard instead of this one for ready? Say, planning commission can consider those things. So the exception category really, I think, does help us with where this well, what if this or what if that scenario that we can't anticipate necessarily. So that was a very good point that you brought up.

Jill Tatton?:
I I noticed that on the little note thingy you put so it says dwellings with three or more units, but in your little notes, put five to seven. What what was your reasoning for the five to seven? Yeah. So the three that we actually list this.

Alexi Lamm:
Five was matching an ADA guideline, and then it was matching a site plan guideline at seven. Okay. So those were potential other, like, destinations if we wanted it to be more units than four or three at this point.

Cory Shurtleff:
Yeah. So I'll jump in, if I may. When we're talking land use, we are updating our land use code. So with that, we're discussing adding additional thresholds of review elements where right now we have basically a level well, multi households between three and six are one style of review, and seven and more are entirely different. Mhmm. We believe there's probably more thresholds in there. Where those numbers rest will be a plan and commission designation, but we we believe if you go six, you probably should be doing more than what the the property with three units is doing. And then with seven, you're doing the same thing as a property with 300 units. Right. There's there should be a little bit more of a gradient there. So this is contemplating maybe getting ahead of ourselves a little bit, but also relying on established code, whether it be ADA or should we go from three to seven, where seven really becomes that's when we're talking apartments or big multi household. Anything below that, we kinda consider plexes. Yeah. Four plex, five five plex. Six plex is starting to get, like, a little bit you know? But that's where relying on the ADF five was like, well, maybe this is where, again, specific to this national obligation of when a certain threshold kicks in of, like, this is where it's a common interest

Miles Lofton:
Yeah.

Cory Shurtleff:
—Comes in. So the three is the bread and butter, five is ADA, seven is that's where most of our large scale developments kick in.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. I think I honestly think having something that's a bit broader, a bit more permissive for this makes sense, at least initially, until we see how things are being implemented. If we're noticing that most projects are going ahead and and meeting a stricter threshold just because it makes sense.

Kya Marienfeld:
But I feel like ADA requirements, some of our requirements for larger projects are more of a need to have thing. I have that sort of in that bucket. Whereas this is a nice to have, good to have, great future, smart future planning, but not necessarily something that we want to hold on the same level as ADA accessibility. So, it seems like having that kick in maybe at a later point, at least at this point, makes sense to me. And also, just trying to, again, incentivize some denser development to try to not have this be the difference between getting one more unit and not. I don't think it would be when it comes down to it because I think financially, it probably still makes the most sense for a developer to have an extra unit even if they have to put an EV ready space in. But trying to keep that in mind at least when we're we're writing code.

Cory Shurtleff:
I think early we had contemplated it's the projects that are small in number, usually the improvement required, talking about possible transformer improvements, those types of things. Usually, when the units are so small, they're probably built into the environment that they could just plug in. They're not tripping most of the time, those transformer improvements for the the power companies. And then larger improvement larger buildings, they've got multiple transformers, so they're obviously already doing it. It's that missing middle of the high end plexus where they're in the middle of, like, we're trying to make an economic development, but we're also being held to a higher standard. So that's where that's a great we, I originally think, had the question, this is where it's hitting into the code. Mhmm. So keeping it three, it just it just keeps it uniform to the land use code. The five, I think we'd be comfortable with that.

Cory Shurtleff:
It would be unique in that we would have a standard outside of that number seven increase.

Cory Shurtleff:
The seven would be probably the most bread and butter jump Mhmm. To make at this point. And so we come up with a better gradient, which we would probably reduce to what would be three to three to four units, you follow this standard. Four or excuse me, three to four unit. Yes. That's why I said three to four units according to the IBC. Five to seven is this one. So that's where 88 is kicking in, but maybe not the full kick a boole of all these larger apartment buildings. But then maybe at 12 or more is where you're, like, you're an apartment building now at this higher level of standard. So for now, I think staff's pretty comfortable with the options. Alexi, do you have any—

Alexi Lamm:
Yeah. I I think the only thing to add is a point that we were talking about earlier, which is we're thinking about townhome style of construction, which could have a garage or not. And if they did have a garage, this is a relatively inexpensive change on a new build. If they did not have a garage, then it could raise the cost significantly running, you know, the conduit and everything out to a spot. So it would vary by how much it costs. But on in the individual parking scenario that we were thinking about, it would be relatively minor as in hundreds instead of a thousand or more.

Miles Lofton:
To me, I almost don't mind leaving the threshold at three if we flesh out more of a discussion about what that exception policy would like, how burdensome that would be and what that would entail. Mhmm. Because there's almost a part of me that says it'd be nice to essentially have the right of refusal. Like, they can come to us for an exception. And I think finding that line between what we're really trying to hit is shared parking. Right? We're trying to hit a a point where it's like, if someone is installing shared parking for the units that they're building, we wanna make sure that if anyone in any one of those units decides that they wanna have an EV, that they have access to a place to charge it. And in a townhome scenario where there's likely to be individual owners, like you said, I mean, it's kinda up to the owner if they wanna do it.

Miles Lofton:
And so I'm kind of wondering, you know, how many units in town like, most of the townhomes I see built in town recently are very much not a shared parking situation. Mhmm. And so I wonder how easy it would be for a developer to come forward and say, hey. You know, like, I would like an exception to this because at my three or four unit threshold, like, everyone will have individual parking. And whether or not that has anything to do with the ownership, like, each unit has its designated individual parking, then that could be grounds for them to be exempted from the requirement. And there's part of me that says, like, my decision on this particular part of this is going to be very much affected by our further discussion about what that exception process is gonna look like and how burdensome that's gonna be.

Cory Shurtleff:
Great. I think in that note, we maybe we put a pin in this because there that discussion you're proposing, we actually have as well. So we ran this through the attorney's review. He pointed out a number of considerations that would have significantly amended this, but I think through the discussion, they were all of his amendments were we we did were they were considered in the drafting. So it wasn't that, oh, we we had not considered that. We we are understanding that, and we're actually deciding to go this different way. But maybe we put a pin and circle back to this as it may have applications to the exceptions discussion.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay.

Cory Shurtleff:
It sounds like that's kind of the core of the your question that—

Cory Shurtleff:
No. You're you're right on where our our dialogue's been with the attorney.

Alexi Lamm:
Okay. So we have kind of it could be an exception. Maybe we would bump up to seven. Do we wanna jump to the exception discussion? K.

Miles Lofton:
Unless there's anything you feel like we need to hit before that.

Alexi Lamm:
Think I think we can go there, and then we'll come back to the incentive. So down here, we're in the review procedures. And, essentially, we got some comments from the city attorney about how much of this should be, administrative, and we talked about this a little bit in our just previous discussion here at Planning Commission. So discussing should some things be administrative approvals, or should they come to Planning Commission, for the way we've been running it with the landscape code? And Corey was also in this meeting, and what we were discussing is that this is standard with the way we're currently doing things. It's similar to our landscape code. And although there are some changes that might whole scale come in when we rewrite code. For now, it makes sense for them to match and that it seems to be working because there is a certain amount of discretion that could open the city to liability because people might get different kinds of decisions from the planning commission. But there's also a flip side to that of if we hold very tight rules, then people are also going to get angry if they're not being able to develop because they don't meet those strict rules. So there's a bit of a decision about whether we wanna be more flexible and have it come to planning commission or whether we would wanna be stricter. And either way, people might be unhappy with those decisions. What we're currently planning or thinking about, and it's a discussion for, today, is to keep it consistent with what we already have because it seems to be working pretty well. And people who come to planning commission for exceptions feel heard and also are happy with those decisions. It seems to work for people's situations in the majority of cases. Would like to add anything? Sure.

Kya Marienfeld:
I was just gonna say, I mean, you know me. I like as much objectivity as possible. So the more we can build that in anywhere, the better. I do think, like, for example, and we'll see this later in the meeting, our landscaping exceptions have gone well and I think made sense. We've tried to be really, really consistent, but it is still an exception from what is in the code. And so having that be like a door we have to open potentially every single time we have a multifamily development coming in when it comes to this, I would be a little more hesitant about because it's not redevelopment. It's development, period. I don't want it to feel like we're adding yet another hurdle that someone who's trying to make new housing has to put in, frankly, for something that doesn't make sense. Even though we could see them for landscaping exception, we could see them for a parking exception, each of those a million other reasons. Think Bigger. Like, bundling those things also. Mhmm. You know, we we certainly don't wanna say, okay. You have to come to this meeting for your parking exception. You have to come to this meeting for landscaping and this meeting for EV readiness. Sure. If they do. But I know, you know, those projects will happen that have some sort of logistical impediment or something where it doesn't make sense. But the more we could come to a number that we're 90% comfortable with applying most of the time, I think, the better. I think it's like a duh statement. Every So, no one disagrees in here, but…

Miles Lofton:
I was thinking either that or if there were certain exemption accept exceptions that were defined and that could be administrative. And then, like, if they wanted to go outside of the cut list of those, then they'd come in front of us. But, otherwise, it would be a quick staff decision versus having to take the time to be in one of these meetings. Like, you know, if it's if they could prove in one way or another that, like, oh, this is all individual parking, then it would just be like, okay. Doesn't apply to you.

Kya Marienfeld:
And it's more of an exemption than, less an exception.

Alexi Lamm:
I was gonna say and we did pull out the the cost exemption last time, because our discussion led to they would come in for an exception. Yeah. So I but I do agree with the premise that we don't want to have people almost by default end up here because it does they have to wait for a meeting to happen. They have to fill out the paperwork. There's a fee for the paperwork. All of those things are nice to avoid if we can.

Cory Shurtleff:
So I think I'll carry you through the the arc of rationale of how we got to it, but the first one is that they don't have to they just comply with the code. You don't have the comfort of section to just comply with code. So I'm starting with that. Yes. So we're starting with that. But, of course, things. Let's now go down through the arc of rationale. With our attorney's discussion around this, he was also like, "Squishy exceptions, not a fan." Attorneys think alike, of course. So, okay, let's start there.

Kya Marienfeld:
We're put ourselves out of the options, it's really what it is.

Cory Shurtleff:
We did recognize the how the structure of code is not gonna contemplate the number of factors that are gonna come up that it never really will. And through that, he thought, well, what we should do is really construct this more as a conditional use process, which we know we've everywhere else in the code abandoned for good reason, is that we'd have to create a criteria of which the commission would be held to to create conditional use of that. Well, then why wouldn't we just built it in as exemptions or as standard code, which we've basically done to the best of our ability within these codes through accept through the exemptions particular sections, anything that we can feasibly contemplate that shouldn't be an exception, it just should be exempt outright, or is just bread and butter. We'll put that in the code. So that really totally erases the need for an exceptions process if you're going to do a conditional use. Just put it in one of those two categories to start with. So what we get left with then is a static firm code that does not create flexibility. So in this case, he said, well, then somebody could argue "you're being totally arbitrary in your decisions, blah blah blah." Okay. That's the case. We've had this running with our landscaping code. And to Kya's point, we've been very particular in our findings of fact and our consistency of precedent. So it takes what I basically said, and there's great, you know, Theodore Roosevelt quote about this, somewhat manipulated. But in this case, it takes a commission that is operating with appropriate authority for this to work. If you have a commission that is operating out of discretion and with arbitrary and capricious decisions, we a 100% are gonna get called on it and take it to court. So these exceptions only work within the discretionary format that we have if we have a a correctly functioning body that is administering administrating the code as it is written and also a clear precedent finding the fact of as we evolve our information. Furthermore, as we find as we have with landscaping, any elements of consistency that are like, man, we're just seeing this over and over again, and it's clear what the boundaries of that decision are, we can then fold them into an exemptions process or administrative exception. This is a whole other thing of our attorney is like, well, this is all administrative anyway. Why is the planning commission even approving it? So had considered and this is we're kind of getting away from this particular exceptions process, but should this whole thing be administrative in total? None of this comes before the planning commission. So he wanted to extract this particular regulation, have the DRT, the administrative body, be the approval authority. Well, what that would do is break up well, the administrative body approved this piece, but planning commission is approving everything else. And this is a discussion we'll maybe have at the end of this is it's very likely in the future, all these administrative decisions that you guys are seeing, site plans where I have to say, sorry, guys. It meets the code. You have to approve it if you do indeed agree it meets the code. It's like, are you even taking that? It's my it's my position that the planning commission is an important community body to ensure that the staff is doing its job. We're you're checking our homework. You're a redundant body, but that's an important fixture even in the redundancy. So I'm still contesting. I wanna bring it to planning commission, show our work even if it is administrative. So, again, with that being the piece, getting back to exceptions, making it fully administrative for the exceptions, kinda where Miles at least for a majority of the the elements that we can forecast. Being, having been in that position, particular to, if we all remember, buffering from way back in the day and when that was an administrative exceptions process, we are 100% handcuffed into acquiescing to the developer 100% time, so you might as well just allow it in the first place because we can never deny somebody for an exception without them appealing it, period. But if it is a body and it's of a discretionary forum, it's not one individual. It's a body of people that have a clear findings effect that is agreed upon. That's much more hard to challenge than us picking up in the office. And, like, I'm gonna it's a bad argument. I'm gonna deny it. They're like, you're just picking on me. I'm taking you to the appeals court. So here's the full arc. I think that we've all now gone through this. Thank you for entertaining this, but it's important. Thought process to how we've gotten here is I do think it needs to go before planning commission. I do think you need to be the discretionary agency that has vague exceptions process in that we don't know what you're asking exception for. Sub cost, adding cost is like, oh, it it doesn't pencil for you. Every person, because we've seen that in another option for a independent feasibility analysis of one of our other ordinances that says, oh, the cost may be too burdensome from you. You can ask for exception. We've gotten backed into corners there legally that we've granted massive exceptions based off cost, which is purely "I don't wanna."

Cory Shurtleff:
That is their argument. "I don't wanna." I don't believe that's a good argument. So removing cost or maybe identifying cost as a factor that should not be applicable within sections may be something we consider. But everything outside of that, feasibility within the site design, construction, all those elements, those are legitimate, I think. But if if if this is what the community really believes in, this is an argument we have with landscaping, If the community, through council and therefore by commission, want to approve this ordinance, but we don't wanna have to make people do it, then let's just not do this ordinance. If we're gonna create so many loopholes for reasons and people, including costs, just not do it, that we're not moving the needle and you're just creating a heck of a lot more of work for us to get through a whole arc of process for them just to be like, ah, you just don't have to do it. I may have lost my way on all of the points, but I believe that's the full arc of I I think the way that we've constructed, it's very thoughtful that, yes, there are some squishy pieces here, but I think they're very intentionally placed in how that squishy exceptions process would be.

Cory Shurtleff:
So back to Miles' comment about getting way back where we pinned to the number is I think somebody we say, you could if you're gonna feel more strongly and and confident in your exceptions process, keep a lower number. If you're like, I don't like that so much. Maybe we increase the number. That that may be a way to reduce the number of exceptions without missing that that hard hitting middle, so to speak. But I think it would be a totally I could foresee this. Somebody's coming in with a four or five plex townhome development. They all have private garages. They come to planning commission like, look. These are private builders. We already even have contracts for who's gonna buy them. It's it's basically private ownership. We want an exemption or an exception to not have to put the one ready in if they choose. You could say that you're you've both submitted your your land use approval and your planning approval at the same time that we know it's gonna be privately owned. We're comfortable with this. It's not shared parking, I guess. The important piece that Nathan had here Kari, I'm sorry. It's long winded. No. The important piece that Nathan had here is his argument is he's looking from the defensibility standpoint of how we're gonna get argued against when we deny something.

Cory Shurtleff:
And what my counter to that is if we hit a hard barrier, so all the exceptions for landscaping that we've had so far, imagine that it was a hard barrier, there was no exceptions process. We just picked a number because we thought it was gonna be reasonable. Most of those, which is what the case would've been, all the exceptions that we've seen so far, we would've said, No, Sorry. You can't. The code is the code. The answer is no. Your application is denied. Because a lot of them could not have been built without the exception. We would have gotten way more challenges at a much higher level that would probably have gone to a place of mobs being mean, their land use story, and they would have removed the landscaping ordinance in total, which they're already trying to do at the state. So we lose the power. So I'd way rather try to work with folks, have that exception, and have way less fights than the one occasion that we're like, guys, this is a bogus exception request. The answer is no. Then they wanna challenge us. Okay. I believe we've built a legal and defensible option for you guys to say no if you choose to. And usually, we'll have a findings fact of, like, your your presentation did not s atisfy our requirements, so I feel confident in our no.

Cory Shurtleff:
We haven't denied one yet, I believe. Right? I believe we've accepted almost every exception. We've modified. Except for a few that have been modified, which I agree is also a good tool that we'll talk about later in one of our other items. They they come in for I was using this because I don't know what term, but they come in for a capital x exception. And we're like, no. That doesn't meet the intent. Doesn't meet the person. But a lowercase x exception, sure. That that does meet it. And, again, this is the whole, you can take it or leave it. So this was something we discussed with the attorney of, like, well, I want criteria of how you guys may have ability to create conditions up there. So it's it's not, in my opinion, you're offering a friendly amendment of we're either gonna deny this or you could take our friendly amendment for lowercase x, which gets your project done, but maybe you do have to do some portion of that. And then they can say, well, I can either meet the standards, meet lowercase x, or not build. I think that's plenty of options to the idea of are we limiting people for development. Think it's pretty generous if we're gonna be so progressive to add initiatives like this.

Cory Shurtleff:
If we don't wanna make it hard to build, don't pass this. But if you want to move the needle forward on all these other larger initiatives that the community is committed to, yes, that's what literally we're doing is making development a little bit harder, but for really good causes that we believe in, in theory. So that's my full arc. Thanks. So that's my piece with this, I think certainly, where we're still looking for direction, there's a few notes. We're looking for direction, but I think that's my bigger overture of, I believe, the structure of this ordinance because it's tested, and I feel I can stand up in front of a judge and defend it. So now it's how we feel about the the numbers where we place some of these triggers, and there's some other basically, the the some of those triggering points. I maybe that's the best way to say it unless you have a different term. Mhmm. That's what we would like advice on. But I'd love to hear commentary or disagreement with that overall structure. This is the community's code, your guys' code by extension. We're just professionals trying to craft it. So if you're like, Corey, just don't buy it. I'm not… We're not gonna be not friends after this. I promise.

Kya Marienfeld:
I mean, there's still time. That's true.

Alexi Lamm:
What do you guys think?

Kya Marienfeld:
So are we the exemption exception points that are up for discussion are whether to kind of totally restructure the exception process as it's written here or whether we feel comfortable with it as outlined? Yes.

Alexi Lamm:
I think the staff recommendation is to keepIt in line with other codes, and then it is possible to add other types of exemptions in here if we want other things to be exempt. Or going back to the previous discussion. There's also discussion about the that applicability of how many units, do we think the right number is to start.

Cory Shurtleff:
As and this I think it was great to start with the number of units and then go to this exception because that actually will frame every other condition in here. If we're feeling as we're setting thresholds, we're like, I it's hard to tell where it is. If you feel confident in your exceptions process, you can feel probably more confident in setting those triggers that if, for a what if, we we get into kind of this what if forking of discussion, the exceptions create well, if once we set a boundary, somebody's not five, they're six, and it's still a struggle, well, you have that exception process for them to vet why it could still advance. So the number is a good one, but there's also a number of other things we have in here that could play into why the exception processes can be a factor.

Kya Marienfeld:
Did you already explore in the kind of initial criterion about, you know, what is the trigger for this standard? Just adding multi household dwellings with three or more units and shared parking? Was there a conversation with the attorneys about that?

Cory Shurtleff:
I would say no to the specifics of that question. In that, I don't think Nathan picked up on that. And shared parking is more of a common term I think we're we are using. That's not actually a defined Right. Design standard. It's what may happen. The what the developer may elect to design into is this more shared common parking. Because in theory, they could build garages all they want and or designate official spaces. We don't typically see that, though. So having that as a particular threshold wasn't really contemplated by the attorney in particular. I'm not sure if he had a comment about that. That was more, I think, Barry's kinda like where this fits in.

Alexi Lamm:
Yeah. That was a term that or a thing that Barry brought up. And I think there to to us, there's a clear threshold between, like, shared and a garage, but it could it's, as you said, kind of a casual use term, so we don't have something that would be defined because there could be there are apartment complexes, for example, that have designated spots, which is shared parking but also designated. So we would just have to create definitions so people would know.

Kya Marienfeld:
Like, no-garage parking or something.

Cory Shurtleff:
Right? If that's even a threshold because it could be garage, but it is… You know, first come, first serve even. We don't know what exact structure. And furthermore, at the overlay, we've seen a number of combinations where there are typically condos and townhomes on the same property, the townhomes having garages, but the condominiums being basically apartment style parking itself as well. So that could be where can we get an exception for the townhomes but maybe keep the condominiums? And then we can break apart the calc on that so it's less of these type of parking spaces.

Miles Lofton:
Do a special exception.

That's right. That's exactly right.

Jill Tatton?:
If you had shared parking, though, and you wanted it EV, wouldn't that EV have to meet the ADA compliance?

Kya Marienfeld:
Mhmm.

Miles Lofton:
But part of me also just thinks about, like, what kind of burden like, again, if you're building six, eight, 10 units, you have a lot of burdens already, and this isn't significant. But, you know, what kind of burden are we putting on that guy that's building a four unit, you know, bottom like, the the lowest trigger, right, above four unit set of condos? Mhmm. And it's like, if you just had to put one two forty amp plug in one garage out of the four, you know, we're talking, like, a 30 to 50 amp, like, draw on the breaker. So, like, your panel might have to be a little bit bigger, but, like, 30 to 50 amps is not insane. That's also, like, a range Mhmm. Or, you know, something like that. Mhmm. Like and the walls are already open, so we're not asking you to do a whole lot of extra work.

Miles Lofton:
And, generally, nowadays, panels end up in the garage anyways. Mhmm. There's not a lot of other good places to put them. I just don't feel like that's asking a whole heck of a lot. And so because, you know, again, we're not asking for them to install the charger. And back to what I've said previously on other discussions about this, a two forty amp plug in your garage can be quite useful from a variety of scenarios. So…

Cory Shurtleff:
I think that well put because we're splitting hairs of something that's already potentially approachable, but I like that we're going through this exercise that nobody's concerns are discounted here. We're splitting hair because we really care about everyone's potential contemplation of make or break. But to your point, it—

Miles Lofton:
Like, is this going to hamper development of especially the kind of units we're all excited about, which is, affordable housing, that kind of thing, you know, and, like high density housing. If it's gonna hamper those things, I just don't think it's a large expense.

Miles Lofton:
I think we're talking like, tops, $1,500 a grand if you're already going to have the electrician there. Mean, that's like that would be a lot. That'd be a long run.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah, agree. I think Alexi made a good point earlier too about, you know, a fourplex that we're talking about. If there's one EV ready, then it's just marketed in a different way like the one with the little hot tub or slightly fancier stove or whatever might be without causing those dramatic cost increases for developers.

Miles Lofton:
Yeah. Especially when we think about the burden is either expense or time. I mean, if that expense is so burdensome for them, then they can pursue an exception. You know, then they have to deal with the time commitment. But I'm almost more worried about the time commitment. It's If complying with the code and not going through any kind of exception or exemption process is effectively the quickest and easiest way to do any of this, and if it's not particularly financially burdensome, so I guess all of that to me means it wouldn't be particularly problematic to leave it at three. You know, if we were asking them to spend an extra $10 on their project, I would think we'd want that trigger to be much higher. But we're talking about, like, probably a few $100.

Kya Marienfeld:
Overall, it's good perspective to have.

Jill Tatton?:
Yeah. I think to me, the conversation about potentially upping the threshold to five or seven is more splitting hairs than not. And the standardization with the land use code threshold also makes sense, I think, in this case of the three being the multi household designation.

Johanna Blanco:
That'd be a good selling point too.

Yeah. You know, for some people, like, oh, I haven't.

Kya Marienfeld:
Lot of cyber trucks out there these days.

Miles Lofton:
You can plug your welder into it.

Kya Marienfeld:
That's worth it.

Alexi Lamm:
Any other? Do we want to leave the threshold here?

Kya Marienfeld:
I think this would be one of those… I'm curious what council thinks things too, because ultimately we're making a recommendation.

Miles Lofton:
Well, honestly, have we had much, like, community response? I've talked to a couple of people that I know about it. But, like, part of my curiosity with this whole thing kind of goes back to what Corey said, which is, is this really something that our community is really interested in? Because if it's not, then all of this is something that could be tabled for down the road. But most of the people I know in the community still are using gas vehicles.

Kya Marienfeld:
And partially because of the lack of charging infrastructure.

Miles Lofton:
Because of the lack of charging infrastructure, but I have not specifically spoken with anyone who has lamented, like, I would buy an EV if I was able to charge it. I think the people I know who have EVs are stoked on them, wanted them from the get go, and made the charging thing happen. Mhmm. And, I mean, I completely understand the renter's plight, and I completely understand wanting to kind of, like, implement something that would make sure that someone who is a renter in our community would have the option. But I'm just curious what you guys have heard from other people or what the city might have heard from people trying to…

Kya Marienfeld:
I think the hard thing is that, like, pretty consistently across the board, nobody is excited about more requirements for things that they have to spend money on when they're trying to develop or upgrade their property. Think that's a pretty safe assumption across the board. Yes, hundreds of dollars is not that much, but here and there, I certainly understand. Especially if you don't even own one. Exactly. I somebody is saying, I don't want an EV car, I'm never going to have an EV car, why the heck do I have to have this on my property? It would feel a little put out, I think, by this. But of course, that's all regulation and that's all requirements, that's building requirements in general. So I think it's just a matter of, you know, is this something that we want to standardize to the point where it's like, we all pay taxes for schools, but we don't have children. It's like the same kind of—

Miles Lofton:
And to some degree, I think that's why obviously we're not trying to move forward with this in a single family home perspective. Yeah. If you're building your own house, then you get to decide whether or not you ever think you'll own an EV and whether or not you think you'd use a charging port or just a two forty amp in your garage. If you're building a housing for others, then you may not you know, it's hard to say like, oh, I'm building this you know, these four apartments and I don't think anyone ever living in them will ever want an EV. It's much harder to say than I won't ever want an EV.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah, think there's a difference in what developers want to see in the code and the standards and then what the community at large would be interested in.

They're renting. Do they have EV cars? My son has a hybrid Jeep, and I just plug it into a regular outlet. It looks in an old house.

Miles Lofton:
And they're slower charging when they're out of a like, I mean, they make them, but they just lower charging out of a one twenty. But

Johanna Blanco:
but it doesn't require something special to make it work.

Kya Marienfeld:
No. I think and I think it being clear that that is the distinction that this is not some new burden that's placed on single family home owners or even duplexes or twin homes or whatever, for redevelopment or new development that it is specifically to have new developments of not small multifamily properties address something that is an emergent need for both home buyers and some renters being the distinction, I think makes sense. I think that's easy to explain as well. And again, it's that sort of cost burden thing, and it is making places more viable. But just you know, I I want us to always have in mind that, like, I I don't think anyone would be like, I'm excited to have something else required of me when I develop something. Just period. But that doesn't mean that that's not a reason to do it. So

Johanna Blanco:
Do we know what other towns our size? I know we've discussed them a little bit, but do we know what other towns, like, kind our size are requiring of of this? Like, are is anybody else requiring this? Because

Alexi Lamm:
It's hard to compare ourselves to other communities of our size.

Johanna Blanco:
Pristine community. I just left Park City this morning, and I didn't see EVs everywhere. And there's a boom of construction going on up there. I'm just curious.

Cory Shurtleff:
I might add here before because I'm gonna ask you to talk to this, is I think when we introduced this potential ordinance to begin with, the I think Alexi was providing the the findings fact as to why we're exploring this because I think we have been called to with commitments the city council has made to achieve our and this is where I'm gonna have Alexi go, maybe go into the the rationale as to why that I think that has been presented to us in the onset of this. And then in tandem where I think maybe Alexey can brief us while we've already gone through that before, I think rebriefing would be good at this workshop, is also what I think our role is, both as staff and then also the commission is, I believe at a certain level, this type of conversation is good to explore this. But I think both from staff and planning commission, we are agents where we've been enlisted to develop an ordinance whether we agree with it or not at the direction of city council. Our job is to develop the best tool possible whether we believe it or not. Mhmm. Commission has a little bit more of, well, we have a pulse on the community, and here's the community's take on how the regulations might work. Mhmm. But whether or not to engage in this, I don't think it's your guys' call. That's the council's call. That's right. Your call is develop the best tool and then let council decide, is this tool satisfying the commitments we've made previously?

Kya Marienfeld:
That makes sense. Yep. Yeah. Real quick, what are some other and we've we've discussed this in in past times that we've had a variety of this discussion. But what are some other things that, like, a 30 to fifty, thirty five, or 30 to 50 amp, like, hookup could be used for in a home? Because, like, I know we've mentioned, like, for a welder and things like that, but like Sure. Lay lay person, you know, are there Yeah. It's not just gonna sit defunct necessarily if someone never ever ever has an EV vehicle.

?:
Yeah. There's series of tools. I mean, like, if your washer and dryer was in your garage or if there was a spot for a secondary washer and dryer, I mean, an electric dryer is gonna plug into an outlet like that. I'm trying to think of, like, more household items outside of tools because I can list off a few tools, but not everybody does that kind of thing. But, like, plenty of people wouldn't mind the option of, you know, being able to move their washer and dryer from the closet in their kitchen into their garage.

Kya Marienfeld:
Just like houses are required to have an outlet for a dryer maybe at a certain point. Actually, I don't know. I don't know if that's true

Miles Lofton:
Or not. So That's true. Yeah. You you can have a gas dryer.

Kya Marienfeld:
But it is convenient if you have one. Is

Kya Marienfeld:
But is there a move to all electric just more fully electric? Are we seeing that, you know, in in new development?

Alexi Lamm:
Especially people who decide to put solar panels on their houses. You'll see more electric equipment inside their house or switch to all electric, especially but I wouldn't say it's the majority at this point of new development going all electric. But there are people who are wanting to run off solar panels or get zero, emission houses. And if you run off renewables and are running electric, then you can achieve that goal. But I wouldn't say that that's the majority of cases.

Kya Marienfeld:
So not like a trend?

Cory Shurtleff:
I think anecdotally, I would confirm that. I think given that we have, through DRT, coordinate with Enbridge Gas Mhmm. Formerly Dominion, more developments more recently, a major resort is going all electric. We've seen other apartments converting to condos that are all electric. So I think it is definitely a trend while I think gas and then particular to what that gas is specifically being used for.

Cory Shurtleff:
I think we I would say I've anecdotally seen somewhat of a trend going that way. But to how to, I think, Lexi's point, a majority it's hard to say that because the way develop that development arc works is we're we're finalizing projects that have been started Yeah. More than five years ago or at least a minimum of two. Yeah. So hard to say.

Alexi Lamm:
Right. I can't control the colors on this.

Alexi Lamm:
This is someone else's spreadsheet. So sweep puts together a list of places that have codes. So this is their spreadsheet. And then I think the point Corey made, this is going back to that question about who has these. The reason we're doing it is because our city council adopted a goal for emissions reduction. So that's why we're doing it. We're not doing it because these other places are doing it. But these are other places that are either are or have gone through this process and some of the requirements they have. I could share this in a way that it's more legible, but you get the point. They exist. Yeah.

Kya Marienfeld:
And this is Grease spreadsheet. It is.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. A lot of our little Colorado mountain town brethren.

Alexi Lamm:
Yeah. Yeah. And in this particular I mean, Sweep's region is the West, so this wouldn't show everyone in the country, but it does show, yeah, some smaller towns in Arizona or Colorado who have these.

Jill Tatton?:
Well and I I agree with our goal that we're trying to get to a better place of emissions, know, in general, by 02/1940.

Jill Tatton?:
I think that's a great goal.

Kya Marienfeld:
I think that said, like, keeping, you you know, all came to that conclusion for a reason with what's written in the ordinance right now. I don't think, like, ultimately, again, it's it's up to counsel to sort of nitpick at the specifics and us to make sure that It works. It works. So

Miles Lofton:
To me, the way it stands with three units seems to work and with an exception.

It's a logical threshold for a reason that matches others, like, the other triggers that we have.

Alexi Lamm:
K. I'll move forward with that. And, there were the twin home as someone's ADU on the property, which also is a thing that happens too.

Alexi Lamm:
And then I'll hit a few of the other minor changes just so you're aware. We did a little definition changing, to try to I think there will be further structuring of this so it's in a more official version before we go to something like a public hearing. But, essentially, we changed some definitions, not to change who's really affected, but to make it clearer how the definitions interact with each other, like, that they would build off of each other, and we put an energy, emergency disconnect up here. Going down, I wanna get to where we have, we did some refinements on the safety codes, but, again, it was just trying to figure out a cleaner way to put them in here. And then here, we talked about this previously, three or six feet. And then I found six feet in a standard, like, code for us, to use as a reference. So it seemed to make sense to go with that, and it also could give people a little more room if for some reason that three feet makes a difference for them. So wherever that was mentioned, we switched up to six. And then I think those are they're relatively minor changes. The rest of it, we've, for the most part, discussed. Are there any other points of discussion? Okay. I our plan from here is to take it back to Nathan and try to tidy it up, get it in a better structure. The next time it would come here with your approval would be for a public hearing.

Kya Marienfeld:
Great.

Alexi Lamm:
Great. Thank you.

Kya Marienfeld:
Thank you. Thank you.

Johanna Blanco:
Thank you.

Kya Marienfeld:
Thank you. Do wanna work on this? Yeah.

Kya Marienfeld:
Writing code is no joke.

Kya Marienfeld:
A lot of work.

Kya Marienfeld:
Alright. Thank you again. We can move on to our first action item of the evening, item 5.1, presentation and possible approval of a letter of attestation for the ACOG Annual Report. So, this is a discussion and a possible action. ARACOG, of course, being rural community opportunity grant. Alexi again? Yep. Hello there.

Alexi Lamm:
Actually, Savannah, would you mind, you don't have to present.

Kya Marienfeld:
Would you like a rolly chair

Alexi Lamm:
As well? Thank you. Okay. The reason I invited Savannah up here is Savannah is gonna come on, and, this is day three. Right? Three.

Alexi Lamm:
So I'm presenting on this particular grant, but Savannah will be, working on grants in the future. So not too many grants require letters of attestation, but, you also might see her in the future.

Kya Marienfeld:
Nice to have you. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome. And, Savannah, what's your last name again? Thomas Arrigo. Thomas Arrigo. Okay. Great.

Alexi Lamm:
Okay. So, what I'm gonna do here is briefly go through the annual report and the things that were purchased through this grant. So downtown dispersed parking amenities, this was something that's come to you a couple times before, for a letter of support and then last year's progress report. Hopefully, is your last annual report as the money has been expended, we are closing out this grant. The timing just didn't line up to have the close before this particular annual report. Okay. So here are some of the things that were funded through this. If you've seen bollards in our dispersed parking area, those were amenities through this grant, landscaping, including benches and also shade structure. A lot of things fit into the category of landscaping, including plants and mulch and irrigation. So a lot of those things were in part funded through this amenities grant.

Kya Marienfeld:
Can I just say the landscaping looks really good, I was a

Kya Marienfeld:
Little worried last year when things went in, how things would weather, but everything is still alive. So

Alexi Lamm:
Yeah. Things are mostly still alive, and they've also, the staff have been noting things as they die because we're in a warranty period.

Kya Marienfeld:
Mhmm.

Alexi Lamm:
So, hopefully, this will keep things looking good for a little while and make sure that, we have survivors in there. Okay. So the total grant award was 590,319, dollars, and, we went through some of the things that covered and also that the final reimbursement is, getting ready to be submitted this summer. So we're about ready to close this out. We will get into more evaluation of how this was effective. The governor's office of economic opportunity is interested in jobs created and things of those nature. They're a little hard to tie directly to the landscaping and our dispersed parking project, but I have heard from business owners that are in the area that they've seen a little more pedestrian traffic dropping in, things like that. To the extent that we can, we'll try to include more of that in our final report. And I included this. This is a payment application from the contractor just to highlight the things that were included. This is impossibly small as a presentation. But it's a lot of the things that we are mentioning there. It's just itemized so you can see each one and how much they cost. All of these are all of the amenities, and then we divided them up between this grant and the match that the city had to do. So what, we need for you to consider today is, approving a letter of attestation saying essentially that this is something that we as a community have been involved in and that we approve and that this is accurate about the project. And we'll submit that for annual report, and then, in the coming month or so, turn in the final report and close out the grant.

?:
And pay application number 11 is that spreadsheet with the highlighting that you just showed Yeah. The invoice?

Alexi Lamm:
Mhmm. And and, technically, it wasn't the last pay application, but it was the first one that had all of the amenities paid out. And it was so it was the one I was referencing when they were asking, like, for me to match checks with payments. Mhmm. Are there any questions? No? Mm-mm. Okay. Pretty pretty routine. Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. Do it.

Kya Marienfeld:
Oh. No. I've I've just been I'm you know, I remember writing the letter of support for Mhmm. A bit more of the infrastructure that was there. I think turned things turned out really nicely. I know Richard was a big part of that when he was here.

Kya Marienfeld:
I think it I think it looks really great, and it's it seems to have held up. Mhmm. It just generally feels kinda more pleasant to walk around a certain part of downtown right now. So Mhmm. I'm a fan. I don't care what people The

Alexi Lamm:
Feedback I've gotten, I think, started very skeptical, including from me. Right. But I think it has it has switched to more positive when people, need to cross the street and the traffic has slowed down, so it's more possible to cross streets. Totally. Totally. I think it's it's maybe an acquired taste.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. What are the bollards for?

Alexi Lamm:
The so the lit bollards are just for lights, and they are dark sky compliant, which is cool. Yeah. And then the rest of them are to protect things

Kya Marienfeld:
So people don't hit them. Don't run anywhere.

Kya Marienfeld:
Mhmm. Those little ones along by the courthouse just like every spot.

Cory Shurtleff:
So if you hold

Kya Marienfeld:
Them all too far forward.

Cory Shurtleff:
Yeah.

?:
Yeah. I think it looks great. So I'm a real fan of the benches.

Kya Marienfeld:
The the bench is made of metal, I will say. It's not the best thing ever, but the vibe is good. The vibe is good.

Miles Lofton:
The shade structures. Yeah. The shade structures I'm about.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. Mhmm. And she's here.

Kya Marienfeld:
And the plants.

Kya Marienfeld:
All the places for the sculptures, I really like. It's it's

Kya Marienfeld:
The water fountain? That's pretty huge.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. It was fun being on the ArTrails tour last year and how excited Christie and Stoke were to, like, have all these places to put sculptures to. Okay, so as usual, there's a recommended motion in the packet that would just be to approve the progress report and letter of attestation that I will then sign. Other options, we could deny it. We could continue it for some reason, but otherwise we could entertain a motion.

Kya Marienfeld:
I'll Move that the City of Moab Planning Commission approve the 2025 ARCOG progress report letter of attestation to be signed by the Planning Commission chair. Okay.

Kya Marienfeld:
We have a motion, to approve the letter from Carolyn. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. A second from Miles. Any further discussion? Alright. All in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye.

Kya Marienfeld:
Aye.

Alexi Lamm:
Thank you both. Nice to meet you.

Kya Marienfeld:
Welcome again. You. Thank you all.

Alexi Lamm:
Yeah. She'll also be working on sustainability. So Cool. She'll be back. Motion passes four zero.

Kya Marienfeld:
That was not clear. Alright. Moving right along. Our next action item, which is something new and different, Consideration and possible approval of planning resolution number 112025. Planning resolution approving the landscaping special exception request for property at 687 And 681 Biddle Lane, Moab, Utah 84532. This is discussion and a possible action on this item. Johanna, take

Cory Shurtleff:
It away.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay.

Johanna Blanco:
So today we have the Biddle Lane Duplexes Landscaping Special Exception Request. This is at 687 And 681 Biddle Lane. This is in the r 2 zone. And up there, you can see, it's one big triangle, but there are two parcels that's split in half. Okay. So this is two parcels and they each have a duplex on it. So this was caught, the need for a landscaping exception was caught in the building permit process. They submitted their submission June 17, and they are looking for an exception to the landscaping code that requires at least 70% of the area required in the front yard to be landscaped. So, here is their current landscaping plan. They have provided us with a basic plan right here. Their landscaping can be seen in green. They have yet to submit their full landscaping plan. We don't have to o much detail other than the area that they wish to landscape. So I'm gonna use my mouse a lot right here. Okay, so this area is the front yard. The 15 foot setback is what we consider their front yard. So 70% of this all the way from here to here.

Cory Shurtleff:
If I might Yes. These are actually two separate it's a mirrored application. So we're we're we are looking so you see that center line? That is actually a dividing property line.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay.

Cory Shurtleff:
So the exception is actually inform two different permits, but as they're mirrored, it's the same concept. But so yeah. As we're looking at the horizontal boundaries, we're kinda looking at the site plan in full, but, really, this would apply to two different properties, if that makes sense.

Miles Lofton:
Okay.

Johanna Blanco:
Yes. So about 45% of each property's front yard is currently set to be landscaped. Again, that requirement is 70%. But the trade off that they are presenting to us is that this area that's not required to be landscaped, they would be willing to landscape. Okay, here is the narrative submitted by the applicant. They would like to I'm just gonna read it. We are requesting a special exception to allow the landscaping for the project to be installed as indicated in green on the submitted site plan rather than the standard requirement where they are attempting to maintain enough parking spaces in the lot for all residents with the plan as shown, we will achieve this goal, which will keep the residents from parking on the street by landscaping the area depicted in green. They will more than satisfy the landscaping percentage requirement, and achieve the same aesthetic goals. Okay. And I think if you have any questions for them, I'll have you do that before I go into my analysis. Let's go back to the plan.

Cory Shurtleff:
Have we introduced her after?

Johanna Blanco:
No, we have not.

Cory Shurtleff:
Thank you. Then we can also offer the commission if they want for him to speak even outside of questions, but up to you.

Johanna Blanco:
Yes. Today, we have Scott Irvine online with us. And if you'd like for him to just give a spiel, perhaps he'd be willing to do that. Or if you have any questions, up to you guys.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. Sure. Scott, that would be great if you wanna introduce yourself. Anything you'd like to say, information you think is relevant for us to have, go for it. We're happy to have you.

Scott Irvine:
Alright. Thank you. I'm Scott Irvine, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Yeah. Basically, this is we're just building a duplex on each lot and by our goal here is to keep the parking off the street and by having that parking up front, we if we kept to the standard what you want for landscaping, we'd lose two parking spots and that could create some street parking. And so we're just trying to reduce that and make this still aesthetically pleasing by changing the landscaping as we've shown here.

Kya Marienfeld:
Sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my head around. So we don't have the complete landscape plan, but we are looking at an exception. Yes.

Johanna Blanco:
The area of which will be landscaped. So as to not do two plans, they wanna get this out of the way beforehand before they tell us specifically where things are gonna be.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay.

Johanna Blanco:
I think was the object.

Miles Lofton:
I do feel like to some degree, like on another one of our approvals, if I remember right, there was a discussion about exactly what the landscaping was going to be. Specifically, it was about elm trees and the others. We approved it conditionally with understanding that those trees did not count towards the foliage. I understand we're not necessarily discussing foliage here, but it would be to some degree helpful to know what they were doing with the landscaping.

Kya Marienfeld:
Like, is it just grim?

Miles Lofton:
Because I feel like we've brought that into consideration with other exceptions.

Scott Irvine:
Well, we're open to whatever the landscaping would be. I mean, you can actually tell us what you want there you know we'd like to do more zero escaping to reduce the water use but we're open to that and we have a landscape architect that is working with us on this.

Cory Shurtleff:
May I jump in for a sec? Thank you, Scott. Yeah. That actually this all tees up actually really nicely and contemplated in what how I think how we're gonna approach this discussion once Joanna actually got inter analysis proposal is it much like a parking exception.

Miles Lofton:
Mhmm.

Cory Shurtleff:
These applicants are coming to you well in advance of really fully executing a lot of the more robust landscaping plans to could we even get started? This may be, you know, a bit of a a design killer, so to speak, if we were to say, nope. Absolutely not. So in that context, coming to you early to say, could we get an exception? How might we approach it that when we come to you for a full plan, we haven't invested a bunch of money in the wrong direction? So that's, I think, the approach that we're having linked tonight. But then furthermore, as we discussed earlier, is this idea of the x's that we talked about in the previous discussion is where they're, I think, approaching a concept of what could be applied. The commission could say, well, your exception would be not conditionally approved, but contingent and that it is accepted in this way, kind of what Scott said. What do you wanna see? How can we make this work? I think from a more static perspective, and sorry if you're stealing a bit of your your speech, is what I think ultimately we're looking at, and maybe we can talk to Alexi about this, is ultimately, the way yard is defined creates a complexity for us, which we will resolve in our title update as so many things will be. That, basically, yard is defined from the primary structure forward to the property line. Well, depending on that development, that could be a massive amount of area. That does not make sense as what we've considered the the limited common of public interest, which is the front yard, which is really the front setback forward. It's where this regulatory landscape area more or less is traditionally meant to be, but under the technical term of yard, it's everything forward.

Cory Shurtleff:
So from here, the design is symmetrical both horizontally north south and also east west where it really doesn't matter. We're dealing with percentages no matter where we measure from. But where it does matter, where met we're measuring from is as Joe had stated. We're in this instance, because the development envelope, they could move that building all the way to the front and locate the parking in the rear. But that's still the development envelope would require the space for those 18 feet, the two more spaces they want to house it. And this will get into how our recommendation may be framed. But as I can't annotate necessarily, and I'm sorry, Scott, you might not see this online. Rarely deals, but So this is the landscape piece. What they're saying is there could be a piece of development envelope that is hardscape that they're willing to reallocate and develop to the landscaping standard that they wouldn't otherwise need to. So the proposal here is more basically an exchange of this space or this collection percentage space could be recouped in the development envelope. So as we move through the building permit, this could more or less become, and this isn't hard situation, but basically restricting the system. We think of them and say, oh, now we've got approval. We're actually going to put hardscape here. Now that we've already got approval, this would become regulatory area tied to this approval. Would have to be landscaped. So this is where the contemplation, I think, is reasonable for us to accept, and maybe I'll wait until Johanna's analysis to talk about how we're recommending this, which is not how it was performed in the agenda summary. It's a little bit more dynamic than that. Do you follow where we're at?

Carolyn Connant:
Yeah, I'd love Hear that because I think my sort of big overarching concern is I don't want to replace particularly trees with hardscape or because because, I mean, our our landscaping ordinance is is for water wise reasons, but it's also for urban cooling. Having hardscape where you could otherwise have growing things does not meet that criteria.

Cory Shurtleff:
Or permeable or some component of plant is

Carolyn Connant:
With runoff. Like, if it's not going into permeable material, it's going into the street and into the neighbor's properties. And yeah. So I think that's yeah. I'm I'm curious how we're addressing that. If you wanna continue.

Miles Lofton:
Yeah. Questions that might be answered later or might be a little off paced, but I'm curious. One is so these are both duplexes. We're talking, like, for dwellings or, like because we've got a lot of parking for what would be, like Mhmm. You know? Like, I mean, that's five parking spaces per. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I like the idea of having people like, people having plenty of space to park, but I'm curious why we're shooting for 20 spaces total. And then just to play devil's advocate and that just because I have to ask because, theoretically, the easiest way to deal with code is to simply comply. Like, why could the buildings not be shifted forward exactly one spot? Or, like, you know, like Yeah. You're saying. You know what I'm saying? So Mhmm. Just a little bit more parking in the back and still comply with the, like, standard of the parking requirement.

Johanna Blanco:
Yeah. One site constraint that isn't shown here very well is the flood plain in the back. Okay. So there is open space that is unusable. But Your other question, I'll get to right now.

Kya Marienfeld:
Unusable even for a parking spot?

Cory Shurtleff:
Scott, maybe you can help us speak to this if we go back to the site plan as we don't have the the exhibit in front of us. But, yeah, to the rear or what would be the north of the property or the right hand side of the screen, if you will. Towards the creek. Yeah. Drops down towards the creek. We believe and my understanding is this parking butts right up against the flood plain and the creek shown itself is the actual creek. So there's a floodway and then a one hundred year flood plain and five hundred year flood plain of which they are parking in already, but there's a massive drop off where the gravel ends. Is that? That's we're seeing here

Scott Irvine:
So you see the two parking on each side on the north that is hardscape pavement The rest of that is gravel. That is where the slope starts and it's It's available parking that we want to provide, but it's gravel and it does start to slope at that point into the floodplain And

Cory Shurtleff:
Scott is the termination of the gravel piece there. Where is the one hundred year mark in comparison to the gravel approximately based off this this site plan?

Scott Irvine:
Right at the north north end of the gravel.

Cory Shurtleff:
I think it there's a there's an easement back there to kind of show that. Sorry. Visual representation.

Scott Irvine:
There's a sewer easement back there.

Miles Lofton:
Yeah. Okay. Figured it was something like that, but I just also figured I'd ask.

Kya Marienfeld:
And yeah, I'm curious about the number of spaces too. Seems like a lot. I mean, it's certainly in excess of what our code requires.

Miles Lofton:
Yeah, I was gonna say.

Johanna Blanco:
Yes, absolutely. So there are four parking spaces required for each building. And if those two parking spaces that are if they were landscaped, they would meet the landscaping code and they would meet the parking requirements.

Miles Lofton:
So Scott and the developers are just going out of their way to provide a little bit more parking for their like, they're going through this whole process to see if they can provide a little bit more parking for their the people who are gonna either purchase or rent this space. Yeah.

Cory Shurtleff:
And maybe, Scott, we can have you expound upon this how the definition of these buildings is each so looking at them separately, of course, the north property, a duplex, the south property, a duplex. Mhmm. But within those duplexes are and you can take this from here, Scott, but basically operating as workforce housing in that there will be bedroom rentable units that have a common kitchen. And I don't wanna use this term loosely, but a, what has been referred to in the past and loosely as bunkhouse style employee housing where there are multiple individual renting units. Oh, wow. Kitchen. Hence, the store well, I guess you guys aren't seeing this, but number of storage units. So the amenities surrounding what the actual use of the property will be keeps what I would consider the overflow of how maybe another property might be used in this way where there's only the minimum required parking spaces, in this case, four, well, if they're being occupied by eight people and those all have individual cars as individual adults, that will be spilling onto the public realm, into the public right of way. So they're going in an effort to try to reduce impacts in the neighborhood by housing it all on-site even though it's above and beyond the requirements.

Kya Marienfeld:
That is important context to have. Yeah. I think otherwise looking at this regard because I'll be honest. My gut is, like, if we are not burdening you with a requirement in order to have this exception, this seems pretty voluntary, and I like abutting requirements maybe not quite penciling out as a good reason to make an exception. Totally.

Cory Shurtleff:
So if we can then that, because that's a perfect tee up, I'm sorry, if we can. To Johanna's, the agenda summary proposed a staff recommendation, which was not necessarily in our analysis, but it was more or less framed in the agenda side as a positive recommendation. We're actually going to maybe discuss this in a little bit more dynamic.

Johanna Blanco:
Yes. I've got motion options today, and staff is more or less neutral on this. So I have a positive and negative and then a motion with some conditions or amendments, these are absolutely just examples of what could be. I wouldn't put my analysis behind either of these. So earlier it was discussed, well, what are they gonna put in their landscaping plan? We could put something in our motion about they can't go for another exception. If we wanted to make sure that the trees were gonna be there, perhaps that could be in this. And then also,

Cory Shurtleff:
Yeah. Feel free to tack on. I might as well, I I'm actually and no offense to the applicants from a and I've done this before with where the commission actually disagreed with me, which was rightfully so. But from a presidential standpoint and from a technical aspect, I believe staff is actually advancing a negative recommendation on this exception. In that, it is exactly what Kaia said. They are going above the minimum requirements, so their deviation from standard is elective. They're from a technical standpoint, I think the staff would say they can meet the standards. Are choosing not to. However, upon the nature of what is being proposed, we will, I think, amend in a way so having stated the negative recommendation, amend in a way to a neutral recommendation and that from a technical perspective, they can meet the code. So they from essence of the criteria of our exceptions, no. They can meet the code. They're they're choosing not to. There's no hardship upon them other than what they are choosing to place upon themselves. That being said, the approach to which they're trying to end the site constraints given the floodway, and I had pulled I wish maybe I I'll share it in the meantime. I have our Google Earth up that is showing the floodplains in the rear that they have an a large area that is in the back. And once you see that, the flood way takes up almost that entirety of that space, and then the flood plains, one hundred year to five hundred year, are stacked, or basically, they have nowhere else to go.

Cory Shurtleff:
Mhmm. So if they are to supply the sufficient amount of parking for what the intended use of the property is, they are the development envelope is not big enough. So there's two options, which is why we're neutral in this. The commission allows them to encroach into this regulatory area, or you don't, and they have to choose. Do they reduce the number of rentable spaces for the intended occupants. Therefore, reducing the space is therefore reducing the required parking. Therefore, they parking does satisfy. You shrink what your product is, and then your product fits. Or utilize the space that they can from their dwelling perspective and allow that to infringe a little bit with this reallocation of regulatory landscaping space from a horizontal perspective to a little bit more of a a penetration into the development envelope. So it's very custom. That's why I think I will go back and say it's neutral from that perspective. Does that make sense from a recommendation standpoint? Mhmm. Yeah. One of the most complex recommendations I think we've ever given. Mhmm. But it it's when we had done the parking exception, it was similar to that. From a technical piece, we're saying, no. But we also recognize the the content of what it is that's being discussed and can happily endorse whatever the commission decides.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. Trying to look at, like, the current there's quite a few trees on the property now that I assume I believe it's been Has it been scraped?

Carolyn Connant:
I haven't been out there in a while.

Cory Shurtleff:
So, Scott, yeah, you're you're understanding the property. There there's not a lot of natural vegetation left. It's prepped for construction. Correct?

Scott Irvine:
That's correct. Yeah.

Carolyn Connant:
Well, because I'm think I mean, we have you have the undeveloped area that abuts Pack Creek. I assume all the trees have not been removed up to the creek.

Scott Irvine:
Yeah, down into the floodplain, we have not removed anything. Yeah. Natural vegetation. There's no sense for us to remove any of that.

Carolyn Connant:
Totally. And that definitely serves, I think

Jill Tatton?:
Stability and stuff. Stability and purposes.

Carolyn Connant:
They're probably have elm trees, but it's fine. I can see some Russian olive. You know? There's They're not necessarily desirable, but they do still help cool. They do still help provide, you know, shade for wildlife and some structure to that femoral waterway going through

Cory Shurtleff:
Town. So we can confirm this if it hasn't already from the crossover, if the building plan sets to what it is that we're seeing through a building permit to what's then the site plan. So what we're looking at is these are the two properties. And our understanding essentially is that that parking that they have in gravel goes basically right up to this section, which into the floodway, even to Carolyn's point, even parking, if they were to clear those trees, is is regulated by FEMA and and quasi prohibited, and that you have to go through the army court of engineers to stream alteration. Mhmm. So it's not impossible, but it staying out of the floodway, both I think from the developer's perspective and then the cities is preferable.

Johanna Blanco:
Yes.

Cory Shurtleff:
Yes. So this is their envelope indeed. So they've basically maximized their envelopes to the best of their ability to the compliance that they can, but it's still not a sufficient envelope to have the number of units supported by the parking that they proposed.

Scott Irvine:
But now remember, we only are required for parking per unit. You know, we're just trying to help out that situation.

Kya Marienfeld:
Oh no, we understand that, certainly. It's just a matter of we're having, you know, the one thing maybe butt up against the other thing that is also desirable and beneficial for the local community, is not just having this massive heat island put on the neighborhood either, the same way that maybe more cars parking on the street might be a downside. I think having this roasty toasty large parking lot where there used to be trees, I think is a consider. And that's what the landscaping ordinance tries to, contemplate, too. So just talking through that. And having it be something new where a lot of our exceptions we've talked about in the past have been, like you said, a feasibility thing, less a voluntary thing on the part of the applicant. So a little bit new.

Cory Shurtleff:
This is unique. This is unique for sure.

Miles Lofton:
Or if they've been voluntary, it's been about species of a tree that they wanted to maintain Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Which is a slightly different deal. I do respect the fact that what you're trying to do for the neighborhood adding in those going to this I know it's an extra expense to pour a couple more parking spaces. It's, you know, an extra effort to be here today. So I I definitely respect that. And the thing that I'm most leery about here, which could be covered in the amended motion is, like, a lot of these exceptions that we've made, we have been able to see the entire picture when we've made the final exception. And while I'd be I mean, I don't know how everyone else would feel, but I personally might feel comfortable saying, like, yeah. We feel pretty good about, you know, exchange of some of the space in the front yard, so to speak, for some of the space in the side yard. I wouldn't want it to be a full approval of their landscaping ordinance until we were certain of what they were moving forward with otherwise.

Carolyn Connant:
Yeah. But I also understand that they need some certainty before proceeding with aspects of the project.

Miles Lofton:
Yeah, well, that's what I'm saying. That's what the balance is.

Cory Shurtleff:
And that could be in this. I was waiting for this, if I might jump in. I think an obvious idea talking about this exchange piece. Right? This this piece developed envelope that they're committing in some way restricting to landscaping would, I think, without but kinda more obviously, have to comply with the landscape the general landscaping standards.

Johanna Blanco:
Yep.

Cory Shurtleff:
That may be a condition that you you into a amended type motion. And then also a potential either mandate or recommended scope of what you would additionally like to see within that because they would have to meet if we're we're, arcing it. So the penetration into the development envelope becomes a part of our landscaping space has to meet the base level landscape percentage. For the instance, it could be all gravel plus the addition of the 10% plant material. What I might say is, okay. That's how we'll calculate. What the planning commission might also say is you're providing a street tree on the North and a a street tree on the South, right of way trees. We'd also like you to see a canopy tree placed there.

Miles Lofton:
Kind of where I was at. It's like…

Cory Shurtleff:
You can say, we're gonna guide you, and I think that's what Scott's even saying. We look we'd be open to guidance, and tell us what you want us to put in that place to? That actually works. To exactly what you recently had communication with our attorney about when it comes to the EV standards, where he's like, it's too conditional. It's weird. So this is where you would grant the exception in this case because it is a fully discretionary option, and then Scott or and the the applicants can choose to accept that or don't. It is the Yeah. The big x, little x discussion of you're proposing this. We would deny your proposal that doesn't include some standards. But if you'd rewrite your exception request to include compliance with these things, we'll grant lowercase x. And then they have the option to proceed with the motion of we'd only accept capital x or you guys deny. Does that make sense?

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. That makes sense.

Cory Shurtleff:
I do think we have the authority to create an exception approval that has particular elements included in it that they can choose to accept or not accept. Got it. It's ultimately there like a tit for tat kind of thing. That is because, again, this is a discretionary exception. They can just comply or don't comply. But I think, like, Scott's point is, we're trying to help. We could easily like Miles said, it's expensive. We could get rid of that parking and be the cheaper for it and put in some gravel. But what they're trying to do and that's why, again, this neutral piece from staff is, like, we see the bigger picture. But also from a presidential standpoint to the technical criteria, we're gonna be negative slash neutral.

Miles Lofton:
And I think it's important to understand the bigger picture. Like, when I first saw this coming forward, my knee jerk reaction was we're not requiring them to have this many parking spaces. Mhmm. So why would we let them get away with an exception for the landscaping ordinance? But with the understanding that that this is in the way this property is gonna be used.

Kya Marienfeld:
Super important context. Yeah.

Miles Lofton:
Like, that was that was really important context for me to understand because that makes this more of a consideration. Mhmm. And part of me thinks, like, how many trees would they need along that frontage if they were to do the full seventy percent?

Alexi Lamm:
Three.

Miles Lofton:
So they need three total, and they're providing us with two?

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. That's my that is my question is looking at the matrix. What's up with that too?

Johanna Blanco:
Yes. So it is two different lots and it's 60 feet per lot.

Miles Lofton:
Yep.

Johanna Blanco:
So with the requirement of 40 feet, I mean, one tree per 40 feet. Believe that's two trees per lot. I don't wanna put you on the spot. But I think that that's the case because it would be three if we were looking at both.

Miles Lofton:
They're individual lots. Theoretically treated as individual lots, they would have to have four shade trees along their frontage total treated as individual lots.

Kya Marienfeld:
No. It would be two if they're treated as well, Alexi, do you have any my brain's getting a little

Johanna Blanco:
60 foot frontage. How many trees?

Alexi Lamm:
If it's actually 60, then we would round up.

Alexi Lamm:
It would be 40. Yeah.

Alexi Lamm:
It says 59, we would not.

Kya Marienfeld:
So, what the code matrix that's included in the packet says is that what it cites to is a minimum of one tree for every 40 linear feet of street frontage is required in the right of way or adjacent to the private street, except as outlined in this section. And what's noted is that there's a 55 foot frontage for each lot. So that would be three required, which I don't understand unless they're combined as one.

Johanna Blanco:
Yeah, that's it.

Cory Shurtleff:
It's the two and two, so a couple of four street trees. They're proposing one, it appears, in this landscape. So we're looking dynamically, again, you don't have a full picture yet, we're just looking at, can they even have, I believe the exception for right now is just the landscaping ratio, the landscaping and heart surgery ratio. So we haven't even assessed what is your vegetation. Are there other exceptions that may need? Which calls into the question, do we have a complete picture or not? So it is very dynamic, but do they go down and and they may not need a landscape architect, but somebody to produce the landscaping detailed plans, if the ratio was even gonna be rejected?

Kya Marienfeld:
Well, and that's what I'm getting hung up on. It's like, okay. So we're lessening the ratio, and then also they're only having two trees proposed out out of four.

Cory Shurtleff:
Not right now. Confused. Yeah. So right now, we're we would in my understanding, is just accept the ratio. Yeah. So if they came in with their actual plan and could not fit those two trees or in some form, which with their landscaping abutting, I think that they could get the appropriate ratio both on the frontage and then if the land the Okay. Commission were saying, hey. In this other reallocated area so, basically, each, I'm not putting words into your guys' mouths, but they would have two street trees for the North property and one potentially requested or mandated shade tree that's a part of the landscape canopy of the penetrating development area. So six trees in total for both properties. That's what I'm getting at. But right now, the exception is only for the ratio. We do not have a landscaping plan for you to accept right now.

Carolyn Connant:
So that's just additive stuff that You have?

Cory Shurtleff:
It's very possible if they get the ratio figured out, they can meet all the other standards. We just don't know yet. This was just a rough representation.

Miles Lofton:
Mostly, in my head, it was like if we're going to allow them a reduced ratio on the frontage, like asking for whatever would have existed in that space to be implemented elsewhere so that we still have these shade trees, We resist the whole heat island thing, and everybody kinda gets what they want. Yes. Feels somewhat reasonable.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. And there was a slide that you had up that so we are we would be giving 30 some percent of what would otherwise be required. Were there any gets that were inherent in that? Again, there was a slide you had that had some text about 36 feet or something like that.

Johanna Blanco:
Yes. Is the distance. Can

Kya Marienfeld:
You pull it up, please? Thank you.

Johanna Blanco:
That's the distance, from the required, yard to the building that they are offering the landscape. I think I'm confused. What is plans to landscape an additional 36 feet mean? They plan to do this if given the exception of the park.

Kya Marienfeld:
I apologize. Can we put this in the context of what it would be under the code?

Johanna Blanco:
Yes, under the code.

Carolyn Connant:
Then what maybe in addition they're proposing in

Cory Shurtleff:
So sorry again.

Cory Shurtleff:
From this point forward to the right of way is the setback. This is what we're considering the front yard. Right now, this ratio hard surfacing to landscape is actually inverted, basically. They have like

Miles Lofton:
Close to 70% hardscape because they've got, like, 36% or 34% landscape.

Cory Shurtleff:
So it's it's basically flipped. So if they were to remove this, but they maintain this access, this is all landscapes. Look at this as driveway which if you were just to get rid of that, that's sort seems like your standard single household plot, right? But because they're developing envelope, they're actually going to increase their parking, their development envelope into setback. So that, what we're losing is this space and a half being landscaped. What they're saying is we'll take this space that otherwise could be hardscapes and make it the landscape.

Carolyn Connant:
That's what I was more…

Cory Shurtleff:
These trees, they could easily or potentially the idea have another street tree here, another street tree here for a total of four, which was absolutely the requirement. Also, as commission could say, preferably in this landscape area, it isn't just gravel. Is at least meeting landscaping standards plus a shade canopy tree, if that's what you chose or some particular Yeah. Directly. We'll have that

Miles Lofton:
And that makes a lot of sense to me.

Carolyn Connant:
So it's not an overall loss of landscaped area on the property.

Miles Lofton:
No, it's just a relocation.

Carolyn Connant:
Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at was like, we're not Yeah. It's the frontage.

Cory Shurtleff:
That's not the applicant's request. That is like our, Hey, here's a way that we could make this work. The applicants are just saying, Can we just not? Although that's not terribly untrue. Scott did say we would landscape this spot, that's not the way the code exception would read. That's his already proposed medium X, if you will. It's not a hard exception from the ratio.

Carolyn Connant:
Is there a way we could just put that numerically? Because I don't much care where on the lot that landscaping ends up. I'm literally concerned that x square footage of x square footage of the entire lot remains landscaped area. Doesn't matter if it's on the frontage or the sides or in the middle

Carolyn Connant:
Know, if there's, like, an aviary in the middle of the building or something and sneak in.

Cory Shurtleff:
That certainly, if that's the position that it can I would my only thing would be, like,

Carolyn Connant:
You have we have our percentages in the code broken up, there's the street frontage component, where there's the rest of the property component, I just want it all to add up to 100% of what that would require at the end of the day? Exactly. Regardless of where it

Jill Tatton?:
It's supposed to be 70% of the front

Carolyn Connant:
Of the frontage, but the overall property…

Jill Tatton?:
It's 45 on the front.

Cory Shurtleff:
That's where we're basically allowing the front yard to penetrate and rotate in. That's all we're doing. Basically the front, the side. Why I believe what's proposed by Scott is actually, I think, could work for the commission if you chose to go this way, is that it is still potentially offering to the effect that what the yards are meant to be, which in our code, while I don't agree with it, is meant to preserve the beautification of the city and all the soft squishy language about the, you know, maintain stability of housing values, those types of weird I don't like it, but it's in our general plan and in our code. But what that does is it keeps that landscaping attached to the common frontage appearance versus if we put it in the back, well, that's great for the tenants, but it's not achieving the intent

Carolyn Connant:
Yeah, that's literally my concern is overall percentage of landscape area on the entire developable box. X equals X. X equals X. As long as X equals X or if X equals more, that's awesome. The street tree's important. I think that is for a reason. That is that is that is using private property easements and setbacks to help provide shade to the the right of way, which is an important use of the code too. So I don't wanna That actually matters proximity wise where that's located, but that seems like that's not a difficult thing for this to accomplish even with what the requirement is. If it's a question of your nice garden running along the street versus it being turned and running perpendicular to the street, I genuinely don't care as long as it's there. That's why I'm at it.

Miles Lofton:
I'm in agreement of the fact that what we're looking for from this landscape ordinance, like, the the heart of it is some amount of water stain sustainability and some amount of, like, heat island prevention. And by and that was why my only concern was how many trees are would have had to be installed on the frontage and making sure that same number of trees ends up on the front part of the property, whether or not it falls within what we are defining as the frontage Mhmm. Doesn't really bother me.

Miles Lofton:
Yeah. Especially in going back to what I said, he's going out of his way to provide enough parking to make things a little bit easier on the neighborhood. Provided we're still keeping the spirit of the landscaping ordinance.

Kya Marienfeld:
Scott, thank you for sort of bearing with us as we work through this. You're sort of the test case for this particular scenario, so we appreciate your patience and willingness to answer questions. Do you think we are adequately holding the applicant to the things we have discussed with things as written, or we would like to do something a little different as far as what we would like to offer as the exception. Let's

Cory Shurtleff:
See here. Go ahead, Johanna.

Johanna Blanco:
Yeah, I'm gonna bring us back to what the code says in the third bullet here. I think an exception to this language still makes sense.

Carolyn Connant:
Because this only addresses the…

Johanna Blanco:
That it has to be in the front yard. So if our only concern is Yeah, it might read a positive recommendation, might read as a exception to the 70% or the front yard portion of this language because we are, I believe that the language just says the proposed exception.

Kya Marienfeld:
I'm just asking if we need to add language. Yeah, if we need to counter counter offer our own.

Cory Shurtleff:
I believe you do. Okay. The reason being because this grant a straight exception to the ratio. Yeah. It does not contemplate the reallocation. So what you may do is provide a motion that we prove the exception to the front yard ratio with the I I'm so used to saying condition. So maybe just for this moment, we'll say the condition Provided that Provided that's thank you. Provided that the ratio is recaptured within the development envelope. Yeah. So that's your x that x equals x. That and then that portion of restricted property comply with the landscaping standards consistently with the front yard. This is where I might pause and then allow the commission. If you would like to see a particular element, tree, for example, in that space, this is where you would have to do that. That then when they do provide provide their landscaping plans, they'll do the street trees, which they can do without your help. It's they can do that. It's only if you need you're going to conditionally mandate what is happening in that reallocated space further than what just general compliance might be. So you might say, general compliance, fine. Doesn't matter to me. You might say, it would really be beneficial to see a particular type of elements there, and that's what we're gonna conditionally pay for. And then Scott may negotiate with you at that point, which makes the most sense for the development.

Carolyn Connant:
So general requirements that would still apply, the forestry street trees would still apply regardless if we do or do not grant this exception. It has no bearing on it's all about percentage of the frontage area, not what's contained there, and it doesn't somehow knock down the other requirements for the street area. I'm comfortable not including language about the trees. Is that still there?

Carolyn Connant:
If they wanted two trees on the frontage, that would be it. They'd have to come back.

?:
They'd to come back to make that exception

Carolyn Connant:
I'm fine with that not being included. I don't much care to talk about specific elements. I'm more concerned about the overall percentage of landscaped areas. Maybe just with the note that like xeriscape is great, but man, it's nice to see hearty native plants, and that would be cool if that was more of a priority over

Cory Shurtleff:
By percentage, they may very well Yeah. Aesthetically, I'm sure they're gonna want their project to feel and look Mhmm. Yeah.

Miles Lofton:
Not just be a sea of gravel.

Cory Shurtleff:
Which it can't be to at least a 10%

Kya Marienfeld:
Green.

Miles Lofton:
Excuse me. 25%. Thank You.

Kya Marienfeld:
I think saying the exception granted provided that the reduced percentage of the area within a required front or side yard adjacent to a street be shifted elsewhere within the development portfolio?

Miles Lofton:
Would say in front of like in between the build envelope and the street.

Cory Shurtleff:
Yes. Mhmm. And maybe even reference the proposed plan because they do that. Which, a picture is worth a thousand words, but I think yes to that language in combination with the reference to the promo side.

Kya Marienfeld:
Carolyn, any any thoughts, any input?

Carolyn Connant:
No. I agree with the last couple of comments that I was about Kya made and Miles made. I also don't wanna, you know, haggle over specifying details in a motion as long as we're maintaining the overall ratios and not overall sacrificing plants to pavement, which we wouldn't be doing.

Carolyn Connant:
I also agree that it's great to see, you know, such intentional effort made to accommodate a housing type that our community really needs. Totally. Housing, bunkhouse, housing, especially with the constraints of this particular property with the floodplain. So Mhmm. It's all very creative. Scott expressed his interest in complying with the landscaping ordinance just in the shifted capacity. Yeah. Yeah. No concerns from me as long as these pieces are specified in the provided that clause.

Cory Shurtleff:
I think that's great. Miles, wanna make a motion?

Miles Lofton:
Oh, okay. Give a Let's see if I can do the whole

Cory Shurtleff:
You may toggle to the the motions recommendation page and then I

Miles Lofton:
Was gonna say, because this will no longer The provide Will this be planning resolution eleven twenty twenty five still? Uh-huh. Mhmm. Okay. Yep. Even though we're kind of taking some of the motions of it.

Cory Shurtleff:
Well, what I might do at this in this point is you guys may make motion maybe before you do is check-in with Scott of how does is this acceptable? Yeah. Mhmm. Because you can make it, and then you can prove it however you wish that it could be intact, and then that after the fact, they can decide whether this works for them. Yeah. Scott, you who's here.

Kya Marienfeld:
Obviously, it's on what's what's shown right now for sort of the preemptive plans for the property. Are you sort of I would I would ask, like, committed enough to what has been illustrated in the the site sketch to us that we've been discussing here to that being feasible that this would be something that if we were basically to make a motion that would kind of hold you to that, for for lack of a better way of describing it.

Scott Irvine:
Yeah, I'd have to

Cory Shurtleff:
Be okay.

Scott Irvine:
I'd have to weigh out the difference between what your motion's going to be and whether or not we just lose the two parking spot spaces and comply with the current code. That's that's what I'd have to weigh out is all.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. And you could, of course, still do that. Even if we approve this motion, you could always have less parking if you decided midway through the project that, you know, you're only held to the requirements, basically. So, but but it would essentially be, I think, what at least according to what we have in the packet and the the sort of aerial sketch, it it would be that. It's it's granting the percentage exception on the front in order to provide for the parking spaces where you have planned, but then more solidifying the rest of the green space that's sketched out there. Mhmm.

Cory Shurtleff:
Yeah. We've had a lot of discussion, but basically, we've worked through the formula and

Miles Lofton:
The

Cory Shurtleff:
Process to defend the findings of why we're gonna make this exception. Yeah. But it's basically what the applicant's proposing.

Miles Lofton:
It's basically what you wanted.

Cory Shurtleff:
It's basically the proposal.

Miles Lofton:
Give give or take. It's pretty much what you wanted.

Scott Irvine:
So And we'd like to go with this. And so if and compliance works out for us, we'd love to go that way.

Cory Shurtleff:
So

Alexi Lamm:
Cool. Cool. No.

Kya Marienfeld:
And we appreciate, again, really grateful for your kind of being here through all the back and forth and us trying to wrap our heads around it. So thank you. That said, I think maybe entertaining Let's see. But it would not be we would not be I mean, I don't know. I could see it being either we are approving the special request or we are granting a special We are granting an exception, but not necessarily this exception. Correct. I don't know which one

Johanna Blanco:
Of those is

Kya Marienfeld:
Better That's what was wondering.

Miles Lofton:
The number associated with it was appropriate because we're not granting this exception. We're granting an exception.

Cory Shurtleff:
This is yeah. This is where atypically, we usually come with prebaked conditions Yeah. Where it's already built in. But what we will do both with Eve and also with the resolution itself is amended with the conditions in which you're and I keep saying conditions. But Yes. The conditions to which you're approving this.

Miles Lofton:
The language provided that will be sufficient in this motion? Yes.

Kya Marienfeld:
Can we still call it planning resolution eleven twenty?

Cory Shurtleff:
What we would do is, directly, amend that draft resolution, hence the draft Yep. To include the provided as the way you will speak it.

Kya Marienfeld:
Got it. Thank you.

Miles Lofton:
Alright. Well, let's see how straightforward and not fumbling I can make this then. So I would like to forward a positive It is your approval.

Cory Shurtleff:
You Yeah. I move to approve.

Miles Lofton:
No. I would I I would I move to make or to approve the City Of Moab planning resolution number 11Dash2025, a planning resolution approving the landscaping special exemption request for property at 687 And 681 Biddle Lane, Moab, Utah 84532, provided that the landscaping, that percentage that is not being provided in the frontage will be reallocated to the space in between the building envelope and the frontage as designated in green on the site plan provided.

Kya Marienfeld:
Very nice. Nicely done. Motion for Miles. Thank you. Is there a second?

Jill Tatton?:
I'll go ahead and second that.

Kya Marienfeld:
Alright. A second from Jill. Any clarifications or further discussion on that? I think that captures

Miles Lofton:
I think our discussion's been pretty clear. Yeah. We got there eventually. It's bumpy and fumbly, but I think it's

Kya Marienfeld:
No. And I don't think I don't think anything you said could be missed the case. Could be misconstrued. So I think that covers it. That said, all in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. Thank you, Scott. Really appreciate your time.

Cory Shurtleff:
Thank you. Luck good luck with the project.

Scott Irvine:
That was a tough motion. That was

Kya Marienfeld:
Miles is our sacrificial lamb for those. So

Scott Irvine:
Everybody needs one. Perfect. You. As

Kya Marienfeld:
Well. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Thank you. Alright. Nice job, everyone.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah.

Kya Marienfeld:
I was having some trouble grabbing my head around that for some reason.

Kya Marienfeld:
Well, it was nice when we finally got that background off. Oh, there's the drop off. Oh, there's the okay.

Kya Marienfeld:
The math was not It made a

Kya Marienfeld:
Lot more sense. Awesome.

Kya Marienfeld:
Future agenda items next.

Johanna Blanco:
Well, depending on how quickly Nathan works, the quick thing that we may have is the public hearing for the EB readiness. Not too much else in the pipeline other than, if you recall, the National Ability Centers that just got annexed in, there was supposed to be a parallel process with that, changing the zones of those, but we'll need to be going through that process with those properties soon.

Kya Marienfeld:
Your shortage response might come back. Now that this one's

Johanna Blanco:
Oh, yeah. Water shortage

Cory Shurtleff:
Might be back. Potential discussion item, possibly workshop. Yes. I think what you've seen is we're we're posing these as discussions to get a a sense of feel. It's really helpful. The workshop you really have a provided structure that's kind of pre final.

Miles Lofton:
Yep.

Cory Shurtleff:
So as we go into public hearing, feeling very secure about all the findings. So we'll probably approach in that same same structure. Establish that record. Yep. Think those are the only two items really imminent. You never know what may pop up in the meantime. That being said, our next meeting was scheduled on the twenty fourth, which is a state holiday. Oh, yes. I'm not sure how that coordinates within our Yeah. City holiday structure. Yeah. But regardless whether we're here or not, it may you may have your lives where you're not here on the twenty fourth. So maybe we get a sense now of whether we want to just move our next meet the next meeting being canceled, move it to the first meeting of August being our next meeting.

Kya Marienfeld:
Oh, okay. We're closed.

Cory Shurtleff:
We are closed. We are. Yeah. There's on

Kya Marienfeld:
The front door coming in.

Scott Irvine:
Okay.

Kya Marienfeld:
Oh, okay.

Cory Shurtleff:
Okay. Well, then maybe that makes it a little easier from a staff perspective. But so is that acceptable?

Kya Marienfeld:
I think acceptable.

Cory Shurtleff:
Okay. I think EV readiness, there's no push. NAC, it's not really pushed. They they can do this concurrently with all the other things they have going. Okay. So I'm not stressed about pushing to August. Pardon? August 14? I believe that's correct.

Kya Marienfeld:
That's a that's

Scott Irvine:
A good

Cory Shurtleff:
Example. Is that right?

Kya Marienfeld:
That's the second second Oh, that is the second Is the way the calendar falls. That is the second. That is the fourteenth. Yeah. Yeah. Because the first is on a Friday.

Kya Marienfeld:
Yeah. The seventh is the first.

Kya Marienfeld:
Uh-huh. Fourteenth is the second one.

Kya Marienfeld:
That's literally as late as it could Yeah. It's pushed out real hard.

Johanna Blanco:
That's what's on our schedule as well. Okay. Yep.

Kya Marienfeld:
Dokie. I will, not be at that meeting.

Kya Marienfeld:
Okay. Oh,

Cory Shurtleff:
But we we did not have

Kya Marienfeld:
Could have been there on the twenty fourth, but I'll see you guys. Oh,

Cory Shurtleff:
I I think in that in light of that shift in potential participations at quorum, we did have Shaylee Bryant, our new appointed planning commissioner that was going to come tonight, wasn't gonna be able to get paperwork in time, so was just gonna watch, but then also couldn't get there for other objectives. So we're gonna have our training with her next week, and then we'll have her full up and ready.

Kya Marienfeld:
Shaylee is great. So I'm excited she's joining the planning commission. She's on the board at Mackwolt with me, has been excellent, provides a great perspective. So I'm thrilled that we have a full commission as well.

Cory Shurtleff:
So the only oh gosh. There's two things. So depending on what it is, I may be unavailable on the August 14. Hopefully Oh, yes. I have plans for a month. I

Kya Marienfeld:
Am available, like, the week before. We could also schedule something.

Miles Lofton:
That's good.

Kya Marienfeld:
Especially if we had something.

Kya Marienfeld:
The week before, I think, the week before.

Cory Shurtleff:
We'll see we'll see what the pressures are, and, yeah, Kelsey might also be occupied.

Kya Marienfeld:
Mhmm. What's the thing?

Cory Shurtleff:
There it's hunting season. Oh, right. Live in a rural community after all.

Kya Marienfeld:
It's valid. I get it.

Miles Lofton:
I get it.

Alexi Lamm:
It's not good?

Cory Shurtleff:
It's like the almost the last Yeah.

Kya Marienfeld:
Day. Yeah.

Cory Shurtleff:
Or it's never mind. Never mind. Anyway Everybody has good reasons. So not a commentary of items, but just wanted to complement the commission. Right? Very very you know, three very kinda complex items and really probably some of the best discussion we've had. I know I spoke a lot through that, but your observation of how to work through that and giving leadership through that, what we're providing to you, I'm very impressed and just thank you for being such

Kya Marienfeld:
Good staff to lead us through the wilderness. So you.

Cory Shurtleff:
You're always

Kya Marienfeld:
The wilderness.

Kya Marienfeld:
Ordering us.

Cory Shurtleff:
That's great. Late, but I have one Oh. Quote that I mentioned earlier. Was like, I might as well read it.

Miles Lofton:
The Teddy Rosen quote. Is. Quote. So if everyone wants

Cory Shurtleff:
To stick around, we can also quit the meeting. No. No. No.

Kya Marienfeld:
Let's hear it. The public needs to hear this.

Cory Shurtleff:
And there's some commentary that his obviously, this has aged a bit, but self governance is the best of all governance, but it is also the most difficult. Only a very advanced people or people of sound intelligence and above all or robust character is fit to govern itself. No gift of pop popular institutions will avail if the people who receive them do not possess certain great and master qualities and above all a combination of two qualities, individual self reliance and the power of good mining for the common good. Above all, there must be in the people the power of self control. That is what I was referring to when I talked about this commission. You guys operate in a way that you go above your individual perspectives to understand and honor the role that you have. That is not common in some of these governments where individual politics and their agendas typically tend to influence and override. So I think about this all the time when I talk about our commission, and I just have to compliment you again. So that quote came to mind earlier, and really appreciate you guys.

Kya Marienfeld:
Does that mean we get to go to the Christmas party this year?

Kya Marienfeld:
I don't

Cory Shurtleff:
Know why you wouldn't.

Kya Marienfeld:
You. Was incredibly I'm far too pregnant to hear things like that and not get a little teared up. So thank you, Corey. Awesome. No. I I echo that too. This is a pleasure. There's I have absolutely no intent of not being on the Planning Commission despite live things coming up because it is such a wonderful place to be. So thank you guys and all of you, genuinely. We have the best staff. We're so grateful. Okay, On that squishy note, I will adjourn the meeting of

Cory Shurtleff:
The

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp4 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you’d love including automated subtitles, share transcripts, enterprise-grade admin tools, advanced search, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.