MOAB CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING :: MINUTES: OCTOBER 25, 2018:

MOAB CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING :: MINUTES: OCTOBER 25, 2018: Members Present: Wayne Hoskisson, Brian Ballard, Marianne Becnel, Dave Cool, Kya Marienfeld, Allison Brown, Jeanette Kopell Members Absent: City Councilmembers: City Staff: Dave Cool None Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Development Services Coordinator Sommar Johnson, Deputy Recorder I Stephanie Haycock Members of the Public: 14 The Moab City Planning Commission held their regularly scheduled Planning Commission workshop and meeting on the above date in the Council Chambers of Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. Planning Commission Chair Kopell called the workshop to order at 5:30pm. 1. Planning Commission Workshop 5:30 pm Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Director Reinhart gave an overview of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Chair Kopell discussed that her biggest concern at this point is the resort district north of town at the Holiday Inn Express. There was also discussion about the Walker s gas station, and Sunset Grill. Commissioner Brown feels like our light pollution comes from those lights that never go off. Director Reinhart said that some of the issues are from the non-compliant businesses. Some of the Commissioners wanted it to be three years not five to be compliant. Director Reinhart said that it would make our regulations that have been currently adopted difficult. Development Services Coordinator Johnson said that our Commercial Site plans have required full cut off, downward, and fully shielded since the ordinance change in 2009-2010. Commissioner Ballard asked who is responsible after the Building has already received their Certificate of Occupancy. Development Services Coordinator Johnson stated that our Code Compliance Officer would be the one that does that on site visit. Commissioner Marienfeld felt like the parking lot and path way lighting for the safety of guests or customers is too vague. She would like to see that language tightened up. There was discussion in regards to output and what the Commissioners would like to see in regards to the Dark Skies initiative. Executive Director of Arches & Canyonlands Park Joette Langianese and Crystal White Moab Dark Skies Co-Founder spoke about the lumens and explained how the measuring of them works. Commissioner Brown said that maybe the code should say the light should be out when the business is closed. Commissioner Becnel felt like we should move it to 10:00pm and sensor lights. Joette wanted the Commission to be aware that they are working with Rocky Mountain Power and they are in full support of this. That they themselves (Rocky Mountain Power) is ordering the materials necessary to be in compliant. Ms. White stated that the Dark Skies organization is trying to set something up to help those who cannot afford to be compliant. She also wanted the Planning Commission to know that they are going to be doing a pretty aggressive campaign to educate the local businesses. Chair Kopell closed the workshop at 6:00pm Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 1 of 7

The regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chair Kopell. 1. Citizens to be Heard Sunnie Sheff wanted to bring up an error in our agenda regarding Action Item 3, it is actually page 37 online. She wanted it corrected that the land being discussed in Action Item 3 has not been approved as Commercial by the County. She also wanted to discuss the spring which is more of a water way. She did state that she will discuss this more when we get to the discussion item and in her letter to the City Council. Bob Greenberg spoke about 17.69 resting on the PAD proposal. He feels like it is terrifying as there is no minimum area or lot size for a PAD. He said we should be terrified, he should be terrified and his neighbor should definitely be terrified as he owns a vacant half acre lot and as he reads that he could put an infinite number of two bedroom low income houses on it. Mr. Greenberg said he will speak more during the Public Hearing on 17.69. 2. Action Item Approval of Minutes September 27, 2018 Commissioner Becnel made a motion to approve the minutes from September 27, 2018. Commissioner Marienfeld seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed 6-0 Aye. 3. Action Item Planning Resolution 15-2018 A resolution favorably recommending to Council Ordinance 2018-23, approving the annexation of the Hansen-Holyoak properties consisting of approximately sixty acres and the requested C-4 and R-4 zoning Director Reinhart gave an overview of Planning Resolution 15-2018. Director Reinhart showed the contours of the property and discussed the storm drain dam/easement. Any further development would fall into our Hillside development. Commissioner Hoskisson asked if the easement would remain in place or would there be a substitute. Director Reinhart said the overall property goes around that and the easement is to the County not the City. He also stated that we don t have a slope study at this time. Commissioner Brown asked if the County did not do a slope study because there isn t much of a slope. Director Reinhart said he wasn t sure why the County did not do one. Commissioner Marienfeld asked if she could ask about Public Comment for the HC (Highway Commercial) and whether or not that was approved. Director Reinhart pointed out where the split zones were located. Commissioner Hoskisson said that normally the HC is usually 200-300 feet from the Highway but there is another part where the map shows it as HC that is normally outside of the HC zone. Commissioner Marienfeld said that it seems pretty significant as far as something that is incorrect as far as what we have in front of us. It s really mostly RR that 2/3 would then become C-4. Less than 1/3 is HC of that particular parcel. Director Reinhart said that upon approval of the Annexation that the Petitioner is requesting C-4 zoning on the 19 acres known as View Gate. Commissioner Brown asked if we should be worried about bringing this all in as C-4, do we want commercial development that far off the highway. Commissioner Ballard asked if the forty acres is going into the R-4. Director Reinhart said yes. Commissioner Ballard said that is what we want to see, after all our meetings that is what we are working towards, is it not. Commissioner Becnel said that she would like to point out that we have spent a large part of time working on Dense Urban infill which has been a huge priority for our City and by definition this is quite the opposite. Commissioner Marienfeld said that it doesn t make sense to her, it fits far better in the character that we are trying to do City wide, not having the whole parcel that extends all the back as C-4. Where the hotel is being built within the Corridor would make sense but the character would fit better as R-4 or some sort of residential zone, she wasn t sure if it would have to be subdivided or not. Director Reinhart said not necessarily, but it would be cleaner if it went along on the lot line. Commissioner Hoskisson stated that what we are looking at is to approve that zone as C-4 or not permit it as C-4. Commissioner Becnel said she has been thinking about this from a lot of different angles. One of our goals is to preserve open space, avoid sprawl, create urban infill because it s more sustainable and it s easier on how our taxes are spent. Because the amount of tax Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 2 of 7

dollars that is spent to build a project like this is not recoup so she is not on board with this project at this time. Commissioner Brown asked what the benefits to the City are at pulling this in. Director Reinhart said that economic development drives everything and housing cost money. By having commercial development that is going to offset the housing, maintenance of the streets etcetera. Commissioner Ballard asked how much of the nineteen acres is actual buildable/usable. Commissioner Hoskisson said we are looking at cost, this is all going to be serviced by Grand Water & Sewer. So we are getting a huge commercial development without having the cost of infrastructure. So he feels like this isn t a big argument economically as much as more of an argument if it is desired. Commissioner Ballard asked about the forty acre Holyoak property, are we not trying to make this residential, he feels like it is a win-win as we have to have commercial anyways. Commissioner Marienfeld said that it just goes awfully far back. Chair Kopell stated that looking at the contours you wouldn t be able to build on all of it due to the storm drain and the left side where there is not buildable land looking at the contour map of the land. Commissioner Marienfeld brought up concern about future development and where Moab is going to be in ten years. She feels like if this is all annexed in as C-4 that far back off the highway that it could set a precedence for future development areas to potentially move to a C-4 zoning if that is the intent if and when this whole area gets annexed if property owners desire it. Commissioner Brown said it is hard because we have annexed in commercial property next to residential and have heard about it. Director Reinhart said the question would then be what would be the ideal line location to draw the line? Commissioner Brown said she thought it should follow the County s commercial line or something close to it. There was discussion in regards to the map and zoning that the County has in regards to the property. Commissioners Brown and Marienfeld felt like the best scenario would be to contact the property owners and ask them to request a different zone for that portion. Commissioner Becnel said that she doesn t feel like we are dense enough because we are still trying to add density to be using open space for new construction. Commissioner Hoskisson stated that it is not open space as it is private property, in the R-4 & C-4 we can build the high density housing which we need. Commissioner Kopell asked if the applicants would come to the table. Alan Melchior spoke as one of the applicants for the Hanson-Holyoak, their intent and what they would like to do is recommend an amendment to do a C-4 parallel from the HC, so they could do another 90 unit hotel. Then behind that they would want to do low income housing/residential for their employees in that R-4. They did acknowledge that as Commissioner Ballard pointed out there is quite a bit of that, which is not buildable. Commissioner Marienfeld asked for them to clarify the boundaries of the Commercial and the R-4. Commissioner Hoskisson clarified that close to ten acres would be R-4, and nine acres would be Commercial. Mr. Melchior stated that was correct. Katherine Holyoak discussed their vision for the 40 acres on the map and the intent for them and what they are wanting to see in the future. Commissioner Brown motioned to adopt Resolution 15-2018 recommending City Council approve the 60 acres into the City of Moab with the zoning of R-4 and C-4 would be applied such that the Holyoak 40 acres be zoned R-4, the top portion of the Hansen property approximately 10 acres be R-4 and the southern portion approximately be C-4. The motion carries 4-0 Aye. With Commissioners Marienfeld & Becnel voting against. 4. Public Hearing Ordinance 2018-20 An ordinance adopting new Chapter 17.69 of the Moab Municipal Code providing for an Assured Workforce Housing Policy and renumbering existing Chapter 17.69, Accessory Dwelling Units, as Chapter 17.70 Director Reinhart gave a brief description of Ordinance 2018. Director Reinhart also discussed the information from the Nexus study in regards to this ordinance. Commissioner Brown asked about the Hotel/Motels vs. all overnight/short term rentals. Commissioner Marienfeld stated that you have the commercial impact analysis and that the overnight rentals would also be commercial. So the numbers from the study are not accurate as they were not taken in the right context. She felt like the in lieu of fee for nightly rentals should be lower than the hotels but higher than it is stated in the ordinance. When we are trying to incentivize providing affordable housing. Commissioner Ballard said there are two things that are concerning. One being that the people sharing the dollar that comes from the tourist is not just the motel people, there are many that are responsible. The other problem is he doesn t feel like it is a good idea for your boss to be your landlord. There is too much control and too many Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 3 of 7

problems that will come up down the road. The dollar that is being shared by everyone cannot be just pinned on just one business. Commissioner Becnel said that the City is doing a PAD so people can apply for low income housing and that should share some of the burden of the housing. It is also recommending the low number of units from a developer according to the Nexus study and in reality there will be a lot more people working for these places that require housing. Commissioner Marienfeld said she understands Commissioner Ballard s concerns but this cast the biggest net to make the biggest impact it s the dual side of having more workers than places to live. This is a good place to start. Commissioner Ballard said that we are not addressing the real problem, if we feel like we have the power and the authority to place these kind of limits on a motel why are we not addressing the real issue of wages. Commissioner Brown said because we are a land use body we cannot do that. Commissioner Becnel said we are a tourist City that doesn t have the same codes and laws that other tourist communities have adopted that are doing really well. We are trying to get up to speed with those other places that have done set really excellent examples. Commissioner Hoskisson stated he agrees we are looking at Hotels as we don t have any other projects that are that large of a scale but we have looked at this previously when we were discussing the big box store. So maybe we should get ready for that. He also feels like one piece we should be putting into this is a leasing agreement, so the day you get fired you cannot lose your housing as well. Commissioner Becnel said you have to be a mixed use establishment to have onsite housing, but you have the option of off-site housing, or paying the in lieu of fee. There was discussion about the three options being given to developers, some of the concerns and reasoning why. Commissioner Brown said that the table with the AAH mitigation and the example that is in the bottom of the table, the numbers are a little strange to her. There was discussion on how the table works and is going to work. Director Reinhart said that the table shows all the development being low income but the text says none of them can be market rate. There was discussion on if we needed to clean up the language. Director Reinhart said paragraph D does clarify the table and clears up the table and text. There was discussion about how this will look if the PAD does not pass. Commissioner Becnel said the one change she would like to see changed before we send this to City Council is the fee in lieu of construction. She would like to see instead of the price per square foot change that to some kind of matrix analysis which is popular in other communities. That considers the property land cost, the cost of real estate and the number of units we already have of low income housing. Commissioner Marienfeld asked if the idea being that you wouldn t have to amend it as much with just the price per square foot. Commissioner Becnel said it would be fluctuating with our market so the City wouldn t be stuck with a million dollars when property cost two million. A matrix that changes every two years instead of a flat cost should be in writing as part of the code in section 6.9.030. Commissioner Brown said the only problem she sees with it is that these numbers haven t come from anywhere but the feasibility analysis so there is not an equation we can use two years down the road unless we have one of these done every two years. Commissioner Becnel said you would take those numbers out of the census, the reports to the City, and you would get different numbers every year. She says we need to figure out the matrix before we pass this. That number is too low for where we are going to be in the future, that number isn t going to change unless we hire someone else again to give us that number. Commissioner Marienfeld said she is uncomfortable with the number coming just from these studies. If we come up with our own matrix that could be adjusted it is a little more targeted. If the hotel fee needed to go down after two years then it could. Chair Kopell opened the public hearing at 7:20pm. Bob Greenberg said that he feels like the Planning Commission has discussed most the issues he had. He thinks it might be smart to insert language that requires 6 month to 1 year leases in order to qualify as low income housing if it is constructed by the developer. He is concerned how much of this ordinance rests on the PAD. He urges the Commission to only recommend to the Council to pass only the parts that stand alone. Or recommend the sequence of adoption so you don t find yourself upside down. With the discussion of how monies are spread from the tourist industry, millions of dollars a year goes to subsidize the overnight rental business and hotel marketing. So there is an enormous public subsidy for at least that part of the tourist industry. In the table that you have been talking about that spells out the unit mitigation, he is struggling with the unit factor. He doesn t know how those were derived but it seems like they give low number of units for the construction. He doesn t feel like it will be adequate low income housing for the size of the Hotels and Condominiums. He also wanted to reference back to Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 4 of 7

the PAD because it s impossible to discuss this without it. The appeals process there seems to be a real weakness as it rest solely on the City Manager who would be allowed to grant exceptions to all the rules. This references back to appeals and enforcement so he thinks there is a real conceptional problem there. Amy Weiser spoke representing her employer Business Resolution, her comments are in the Planning Commission Packet and she would just like to run through those really quickly. In regards to the fee in lieu of construction is there a hierarchy there or is the Developer allowed to choose. She would like when the fee in lieu is due to be clarified. In letter C it includes that the fee in lieu funds can be used for maintenance for low income housing, she would like to see the word maintenance removed from that. The other thing is there is no time frame where the City is required to use the fee in lieu, she would like to recommend that if it is not used in a certain period of time it is returned to the Developer. She also feels like the Planning Commission and City Council really need to answer the question of what is the goal of the Assured Housing. Does the City want to become the developer or does the City want the developer to build it. Russell Facente feels like a lot of things have been articulated real well tonight. He agrees and likes Commissioner Becnel s matrix for the fee in lieu. There are many other tourist towns that we can learn from their mistakes so try not to work in a bubble. It seems the City is creating three options for Developers, we can prioritize these three by making one out of reach. He feels like annexation is number one the fee in lieu is number 2 and the onsite housing is the third option. This ordinance is not going to stop hotels and nightly rentals from popping up here, Mr. Facente feels like it is important to maximize what the City gains from the development. We need to set the bar really high, if the marks are set too high we can lower it in the years to come as part of the reevaluation. Bob Greenberg spoke again, the other thing that troubles him is the method for determining the value of the land. He feels like having one appraisal is not enough. That each party have their own appraiser and then the final number be negotiated. He would like to echo what others have said, if we want to push Developers to build housing we raise the fee in lieu if we want to encourage the the fee in lieu we raise the number of units they are required to provide. Without prioritizing, Developers will do what is in their best interest and so by adjusting the formulas we can push Developers in a particular direction. Director Reinhart asked if he said two appraisers, and then he suggested what if the Developer, the City, and the Owner each have their own appraisers. Mr. Greenberg said that would work too. Chair Kopell closed the Public Hearing at 7:33pm. Commissioner Brown said that the study does try to level the playing field with the three options and if we need to change those priorities that those numbers come from the study. Commissioner Hoskisson said he doesn t feel like we were trying to prioritize any of the options we were just trying to offer whatever seems the most reasonable option for the developer. Commissioner Marienfeld said where Moab struggles is there is not a lot of options of inventory where you could put housing. She feels like the fee in lieu for overnight rentals seems quite low. She would be interested to see if the matrix would come up with something that different that would be a little bit more comfortable that would level the playing field with all three options. Commissioner Becnel said that as of tonight cross out the dollar amount and put in a different type to determine a different type of in lieu of fee. Commissioner Brown asked if we can send it with these as recommendations, or a list of concerns or do we not send it. Director Reinhart said it has to be sent on to Council. The Commissioners agreed to send with recommendations. Commissioner Hoskisson said with the fee in lieu if we have a matrix we have to start with a number. So what you do is you adjust the numbers according to criteria from time to time. So the numbers came from the study and they have some basis in reality but this is where we would start if we recommend the City develop a matrix to adjust this over time. Commissioner Brown asked if we just leave it at that and not say what we want included in the matrix. Commissioner Becnel stated that it should include the cost of land, cost of square footage price per unit, and the City overhead for development administration and management. Any administrative cost that comes with managing low income housing. Commissioner Brown made a list for the Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 5 of 7

matrix and the Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Becnel stated that this has to be contingent for two to three appraisals. Director Reinhart wanted to clarify that would be 17.69.060 (A) (4) dedication. Commissioner Becnel said yes. Commissioner said two appraisers one chosen by the City. Commissioner Becnel said this is not tied to the PAD, this can go into effect right now as things are zoned. Commissioner Brown said the last thing she had on her list was the leases. Commissioner Hoskisson said we would create a third paragraph C in 17.69.030 in workforce housing, it would state workforce housing provided by employers would require a long term lease for employees. There was discussion from the Commissioners about concerns this raises. Commissioner Ballard said he is really struggling with this and occupancy. After this discussion they agreed about paragraph C in 17.69.030 stating: Employers would be required to have a long term lease for the employees. There was discussion about who gets the housing and who it is offered to. Director Reinhart did warn the Commissioners that we are stepping on the bounds of dictating who you can rent to and who you cannot to be careful as to not cross that line. There was discussion about the Developers not renting them or renting them to people other than employees. Commissioner Becnel said that she is getting her information from what Park City is doing because it is working for them. Commissioner Hoskisson stated that in owner provided housing employees receive first preference for employer provided housing. It was agreed upon by the Commissioners to add to section 17.069.050 in addition of E to state; in owner provided housing employees receive first preference for that housing. Commissioner Becnel said that she feels like you should have to send a report in every year about how many leases you have and copies of the leases. There was discussion in regards to that and they decided to not add anything in about Commissioner Becnel s suggestion on yearly reporting of leases. There was discussion about the in lieu of fee returning to the Developer after a five year period as required by State law. Commissioner Hoskisson wanted to discuss Ms. Weiser s concern of when the FIL payment would be due. There was discussion from the Planning Commission about when this would be required. It was agreed upon to strike and prior to the issuance of a building permit in section H2. If the fee goes up in two years or goes down we would collect more or refund if needed. Commissioner Becnel wanted the FIL construction have a two year term added to it. Commissioner Brown worded it as: fee in lieu of construction is due and payable at the time of issuance of the building permit to be added to the recommendations sent to the Council. Chair Kopell asked if anyone had comment on Amy Weiser s list that was provided in the packet. The Commission felt like they had all been addressed. Director Reinhart felt like there needed to be discussion about the PAD segment of this. There needs to be something in as a possible recommendation, which tells Council that the provisions in the PAD that are appropriate would need to be incorporated in there. Commissioner Marienfeld said our recommendation should be: That should the Workforce Assured Housing Ordinance pass before to the passage of the PAD relevant cross reference provisions in the Workforce Ordinance be inserted directly into the Workforce Ordinance. Chair Kopell asked for a recommendation. Director Reinhart wanted to discuss that basing these requirements makes this a development requirement or not and he would have to research this. So looking at the Nexus study and the feasibility study he feels like there needs to be some language in there regarding the refund. There was discussion about this needing to be talked over with the City Attorney. 5. Action Item Planning Resolution 16-2018 A resolution recommending to City Council approval of Ordinance 2018-20 amending the Moab Municipal Code with the addition of a new Chapter 17.70, Workforce Housing. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Resolution 16-2018 favorably referring Ordinance 2018-20 to City Council with these five changes: #1 in 17.69.050b- The table will be replaced by a matrix bringing in the cost of land, the cost per square foot of housing units and the City overhead for development and administration management of housing units. #2 in 17.69.060- Two appraisers one chosen by the City and paid by the developer should be used for appraising the land. #3 in 17.69.030- In addition of a paragraph C, workforce housing provided by employers will require a long term lease for employees. Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 6 of 7

#4 in 17.069.050-In addition to paragraph E, an owner provided housing employees receive first preference for that housing. #5 in 17.70.040-The fee in lieu of construction is due and payable at the time of issuance of the building permit, and if Workforce housing is adopted prior to PAD all reference to the provision in PAD should be inserted directly into Workforce Housing. Commissioner Hoskisson seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed 5-1 Aye with Commissioner Ballard voting against. 6. Future Agenda Items Site plan process will be amended increasing the residential housing up from 2 to 6 will be coming before the Commission. Growth rate for the PAD needs to be discussed in the future. Commissioner Kopell adjourned the meeting at 8:17pm. Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 7 of 7