[0:10] Citizens can be heard

[0:12] after the public hearing section. So, if

[0:14] it's not if it's not about anything on

[0:16] the agenda,

[0:17] stop.

[0:21] All right, now we live it.

[0:23] Ready when you are.

[0:24] And we're live.

[0:26] So, it is 5:30 p.m. and I'll call the

[0:29] meeting to order.

[0:31] First thing we'll do is do attendance.

[0:34] Everybody here except for Sarah. He

[0:36] submitted a request to um to be excused.

[0:39] And so, he's not going to be here.

[0:41] So, thanks everyone else for attending.

[0:44] Um

[0:45] first on the agenda is ex parte

[0:48] communications and disclosures. Do you

[0:51] have any to make?

[0:55] Seeing none, we'll go on to approval of

[0:57] the meeting minutes of March 9th, 2026.

[1:01] I've read them and I have no comments.

[1:03] Does everybody else have any changes?

[1:05] I'll make a motion to approve them.

[1:07] Second.

[1:08] I think it's spelled "vote to approve

[1:10] and second". All those in favor?

[1:14] We'll move on to the next, which is

[1:18] presentations.

[1:19] Well, they just kind of sent

[1:21] presentations. Just a comment that see

[1:24] three

[1:25] submittals for our request for proposals

[1:27] for ladies tail. We got those on Friday.

[1:30] We'll be reviewing them this weekend and

[1:33] the aim is to have that at the next

[1:35] county commission

[1:38] So, Andrew, when you say "we're going to

[1:40] be reviewing them", who will be

[1:42] reviewing them? Yeah, so there'll be a

[1:43] team. Um

[1:46] we haven't exactly figured that out.

[1:48] Kind of had some discussions with the

[1:49] county administrator

[1:52] assistant administrator. It's all to see

[1:54] who can figure out who that team will

[1:56] be.

[1:57] And we'll be able to get back to you

[1:58] soon. There's a scoring sheet. I'll have

[2:00] to do it with you. Okay.

[2:05] Um anything else, Andrew?

[2:08] So, we might juggle things on the agenda

[2:11] around a little bit. We have a called

[2:12] hearing scheduled at 6:00.

[2:14] And Andrew has some

[2:16] of the other filing information for

[2:19] review, too. So, if we manage to get

[2:22] Yeah, if we manage to get wrapped up

[2:24] here with the non-hearing portions of

[2:26] the meeting pretty quickly, then we'll

[2:27] be able to return to it.

[2:29] 4:15 now.

[2:31] Um

[2:33] Next on the agenda is county commission

[2:36] update. So, Brian or

[2:38] Rich?

[2:39] Yeah, I have two small

[2:42] Um we did a follow-up review for 15

[2:44] mining

[2:45] um subdivision. And then we also did a

[2:47] final on Jack's subdivision.

[2:51] So, that's that's all I have for now.

[2:53] That's it, Rich? Um just I just added um

[2:57] the appointed Gerald Wyse to one of the

[3:01] boards

[3:02] on the GWSSA um for the vacancy of Mike

[3:05] Duncan. And we have my findings of

[3:08] interest um the 2025 property tax

[3:11] abatements and cancellations. This is

[3:12] specifically for disabled vets, active

[3:15] military, low-income seniors, and

[3:16] disabled um individuals. And the net

[3:19] impact to the county was $28,000.

[3:25] Any questions for Brian or Rich?

[3:29] Seeing none, just one other thing I'd

[3:31] like to bring up here. Um

[3:33] I'd like to start the

[3:35] planning for just some some updates on

[3:37] the general plan.

[3:38] So, um

[3:39] I think the main thing is looking at

[3:40] what we need to have the economic

[3:42] development done, outdoor rec done,

[3:45] aging done,

[3:47] economic mobility section done, housing

[3:49] section done,

[3:51] transportation safety section redone,

[3:54] and then the water element that we're

[3:55] working on.

[3:57] So, the proposal will be to get this to

[4:00] these

[4:01] uh appropriate

[4:02] um advisory boards.

[4:04] And give them we will say 2 months to go

[4:06] ahead and start reviewing these these uh

[4:10] um

[4:10] these items as they come to their board.

[4:12] And then to have a joint meeting here or

[4:15] a workshop between the county commission

[4:17] and the planning and zoning commission

[4:19] right now.

[4:20] Uh maybe sometime around June. Just so

[4:23] that we can go ahead and

[4:24] workshop the uh

[4:26] those changes. And then work through the

[4:28] process from

[4:29] Sounds good. Thanks, Brian.

[4:33] Anything else for county commission?

[4:36] Seeing none,

[4:38] we move into citizens to be heard. And

[4:41] this is for anything that is not related

[4:43] to the two hearings tonight.

[4:47] You have comments on the two hearings

[4:49] tonight. We have set to hold that until

[4:52] that hearing explains them. Do we have

[4:54] anybody online?

[4:56] Yes,

[4:57] Mary is.

[5:07] You have Mary King.

[5:25] Maybe one here online.

[5:28] Mary is social.

[5:31] Yeah, social.

[5:35] We got one.

[5:37] Yeah, we don't want that.

[5:43] Yeah, I'll cancel.

[5:47] So, we have nobody else other than the

[5:50] people here.

[5:53] So, you guys have 5 minutes to talk

[5:55] about water. That's not on our agenda

[5:57] tonight. And this is the other comment.

[6:00] Uh uh earlier generally we limit it to

[6:02] three, but you have a little bit of

[6:03] time. So,

[6:05] why don't you go ahead and I was a

[6:06] general soils and water coordinator for

[6:08] 13 years, 38 years working with the

[6:11] state in water. Uh during that time

[6:14] there here uh there were several

[6:16] significant papers. When I was here last

[6:18] time, I noticed that most of you, Trish

[6:20] and Brian, and Bob with the exceptions

[6:23] that I've haven't I've met or ever

[6:27] talked about water or seen any mob

[6:28] meeting or anything.

[6:30] And from the discussion I was hearing

[6:32] there, might have been some lack of

[6:34] knowledge that I'll give you

[6:37] opportunities to go find those resources

[6:39] if you would like to. Um I gave him an

[6:43] email with a piece of paper on it. I

[6:45] don't know if you passed it on to them.

[6:47] >> You didn't at this point time. Anyways,

[6:49] it's six pages

[6:50] >> I did. It's six pages long, but mostly

[6:52] it's front pictures. Uh to start off

[6:55] with the 20 22 2005 but a 2002

[7:00] 2001 Castle Valley and Moapa both had

[7:03] source source designations for their

[7:04] ground water.

[7:06] Um where that's coming to play

[7:07] historically was a

[7:09] uh lease for oil from the state office

[7:13] was going to happen in our source source

[7:15] aquifer and the local

[7:17] but the

[7:19] um our local field office told the state

[7:22] that you know, you can't do that in your

[7:23] source source aquifer. And both leases

[7:25] were pulled.

[7:26] Yeah, to it. But the source source and

[7:29] it has to be something with a federal

[7:32] um tangent at some point time, federal

[7:34] funding. The second thing on there was a

[7:37] Castle Valley requested a ground water

[7:40] classification, which was finished in

[7:42] 2004.

[7:44] And Moapa requested a Castle uh uh

[7:48] ground water classification in 2007 and

[7:52] Moapa finished.

[7:53] I don't know who today actually wrote

[7:56] both of those.

[7:57] But on that here with designations, 1A,

[8:01] 1B, 1 whatever, whether it's good

[8:04] quality drinking water, not so good

[8:06] quality drinking water, or even a couple

[8:09] areas which I couldn't feel on the Grand

[8:11] County map that we had some

[8:14] irreplaceable water that John's John's

[8:17] Canyon top.

[8:18] Irreplaceable ground water. Um

[8:21] But if I display this chart very well, you

[8:24] can't see it along the margins of uh

[8:29] this valley,

[8:31] this side, we have some very, very good

[8:34] water, which is what has been targeted

[8:36] by all of your drinking water systems,

[8:38] including San Juan County's drinking

[8:42] water system.

[8:43] The big issue problem there, I'll be get

[8:45] to that in a minute if there's not a

[8:47] problem. In Castle Valley, a lot of the

[8:50] aquifers is is pristine ground water,

[8:52] but you get inputs from the bad aquifer

[8:54] mission on the once again on the west

[8:56] side of the valley.

[8:59] The issue there in the long term would

[9:01] be is if we

[9:03] increase pumping of the quality water,

[9:06] will that displace the

[9:08] unqual- the bad quality water into the

[9:11] quality water areas and impact other

[9:14] users.

[9:16] After that, and it was a similar to a

[9:18] big deal here in this valley in 2016

[9:22] 2015, and

[9:24] everybody wanted to know how much water

[9:25] we actually had. We all are limited to

[9:29] our source source aquifer. In 2019, the

[9:32] USGS did a nice, really good job of the

[9:35] evaluation of ground water resources.

[9:38] Those leaks are there. It's a very It's

[9:40] a scientific document. There's a lot of

[9:43] stuff in there. But the bottom line is

[9:46] really nice in their pictures.

[9:49] And basically if you have without the

[9:51] Grand Staff portion that is flowed this

[9:54] way,

[9:55] we have about 15,000 acre feet of water

[9:59] in this county

[10:02] and that comes from three different

[10:04] aquifers. One is the

[10:06] um

[10:07] shallow Glen Canyon Aquifer, one is the

[10:10] Valley Fill Aquifer, which only has

[10:12] about 2,000 acre feet.

[10:15] Pretty much is all used up at this point

[10:16] in time.

[10:17] And then there's the deep Glen Canyon

[10:20] Aquifer, which has very very deep water, which is what's

[10:24] always been targeted and that that I was

[10:25] saying that brings

[10:27] along the line there of

[10:29] the

[10:30] uh edge of the valley.

[10:32] Uh very very deep water and then there's

[10:34] the shallow

[10:35] Glen water water level and that is most

[10:37] of what's in Mill Creek actually

[10:40] and that is mostly being used at this

[10:42] point in time by the Moab Irrigation

[10:43] Company.

[10:44] I will let you know that there's only

[10:46] 3,600

[10:48] acre feet of the deep Glen Canyon

[10:50] Aquifer out here at this point in time

[10:52] is what their estimate is. At this point

[10:55] in time your municipalities are very

[10:56] close to using that much water.

[11:00] It is still open for appropriations. The

[11:03] whole valley is at this point in time

[11:05] because Teresa believes there's another

[11:08] uh 2,000 or so acre feet that is not

[11:12] being used and Mill Creek is almost all

[11:14] ground water all winter long. We divert a significant Mill Creek due

[11:19] to and it's very big storm events or or

[11:22] big extreme events. Otherwise Mill Creek

[11:24] just flows right along like it normally

[11:26] does. And that happens to be the amount

[11:28] of water that comes by that Teresa's

[11:31] talking about just happens to be about

[11:32] the same amount of water that's

[11:34] not being used by the irrigation

[11:36] companies between November 15th and

[11:38] March 15th.

[11:39] So just so you know, if all that was to

[11:42] be used, the creek would be dry.

[11:45] Um and Castle Valley had one too that

[11:47] was just finished 2026. They have a

[11:49] total of 4,681

[11:52] acre feet of water that is

[11:54] not that much actually being used by

[11:57] their um city states.

[12:00] However, most of that water is not

[12:03] very good water. All of it is drinkable,

[12:07] just not very good water. It pipes on

[12:10] your system

[12:11] and it doesn't taste good.

[12:14] We do but take that water away, there is

[12:17] a good possibility that other people who

[12:20] take water will be impacted.

[12:22] I had two other things I was going to

[12:24] talk about.

[12:26] Finally, I think you would definitely

[12:28] come back and I've got just 13 years of

[12:30] doing this

[12:31] So

[12:34] I've been doing it for a long time,

[12:36] okay?

[12:37] And what I used to do when I was at my

[12:38] job was get the information out there to

[12:41] people that were asking for information.

[12:43] Do what you just

[12:46] Yeah. Then there was definitely There

[12:48] was one other thing in here I had down

[12:50] here on other planning resources and I

[12:51] didn't know whether you knew this was

[12:53] available though. There is a hazards map

[12:56] that was done in 2003 for the Grand

[12:58] County Spanish Valley area. Um whether

[13:01] that's been followed or not hasn't

[13:03] always been followed. We lost some big

[13:05] some piping over here on Doc Holiday,

[13:08] which is which

[13:11] caused this forced the city not

[13:12] necessarily forced the city but pushed

[13:14] the city to do another geological

[13:16] hazard. But the one that's in 2018 by

[13:19] the UGS does focus on the city. The

[13:22] county wasn't involved with that. They

[13:24] didn't really get asked to be involved

[13:26] in that and the city paid for them, so

[13:28] it was mostly focused on the cities. You

[13:30] have rock fall, storm water and piping

[13:33] as your biggest issues.

[13:36] Okay. Um

[13:37] the final thing that I wanted to maybe

[13:39] talk about, which has been a concern to

[13:41] concerned to me, is storm water and low

[13:44] impact development. I didn't get to a

[13:46] different topic because I didn't quite

[13:48] have this.

[13:49] It's always concerned me that your

[13:51] county does not have a storm water

[13:53] ordinance.

[13:55] You do not have an ordinance saying that

[13:56] if with a half an inch falls, 80% of it

[13:59] should stay on the property.

[14:01] Essentially, if somebody comes and

[14:03] builds something without any storm water

[14:05] structure

[14:06] at all, which has led to some very

[14:08] difficult issues with some of your storm

[14:11] water in

[14:12] the Moab

[14:14] area,

[14:14] which you're probably aware

[14:16] Several people up there that have been

[14:17] hit with the water.

[14:19] There is a model storm water ordinance

[14:21] that's out there that the UDQ has

[14:24] adopted. I don't know if you're familiar

[14:25] with that, but

[14:26] it is

[14:27] It has been adopted by most of the

[14:29] cities within maybe slight tweaks in in

[14:32] southern county area and in all of

[14:34] southern Utah area. It's a great

[14:37] compromise between developers and

[14:38] everything else. It's a reasonable thing

[14:40] to do.

[14:41] And I'm going to suggest for the

[14:44] meantime

[14:46] that Grand County consider a storm water

[14:49] ordinance for new development.

[14:52] Okay. Um along with those with that is

[14:56] low impact development

[14:58] and there is a low impact development

[15:00] kit. We We came down twice a month about

[15:04] that. That is available from the

[15:08] um

[15:10] State of Utah and the EPA, which gives

[15:12] you ideas on how you could build low

[15:15] impact developments as opposed to what

[15:18] we've normally seen here. So

[15:20] I want to say

[15:23] I have one more thing to say.

[15:25] You guys

[15:28] and that high density thing came out, a

[15:31] bunch of people with lower

[15:33] property with property that had issues

[15:35] with it, all of a sudden became a hot

[15:38] topic. They tried to get some

[15:39] developments on them. One of them did

[15:41] get developed. Please do me a favor,

[15:44] don't put developments on top of

[15:46] springs.

[15:47] It's just a bad idea.

[15:53] Okay. Do something off from buy a buy

[15:56] the spring company. Make it a park.

[15:58] Whatever needs to have it happen, but

[16:01] it's just bad news when you put

[16:05] developments on top of springs.

[16:07] Okay. So

[16:09] at any point in time do you guys need to

[16:11] have me to speak with you or anybody

[16:13] else about some of this stuff or if you

[16:15] have any questions, feel free to contact

[16:18] us. And if you I'll send you the latest

[16:21] copy of that model ordinance on that

[16:23] which you'll get in the next day or two.

[16:24] I'll

[16:25] I will Andrew and I will go to the city.

[16:28] I hope you stick around.

[16:30] I do too.

[16:32] I I can watch you all over the county

[16:33] but

[16:34] I very much appreciate you coming in and

[16:36] talking and I close you welcome at any

[16:38] Biggest problem I had in my job for 13

[16:41] years was the revolving door.

[16:44] Thank you both.

[16:46] for your time and you

[16:47] have time.

[16:51] We're here for a couple more weeks.

[16:53] Yeah, you before you take off,

[16:55] you want to do the next two? I can do

[16:56] that. Okay. Thank you so very much.

[16:58] You're welcome.

[17:01] All right. So

[17:02] um

[17:04] We're in citizens to be heard and it's

[17:07] anything citizens may bring up that's

[17:10] not related to the two hearings we have

[17:12] tonight. So if anybody in the room has

[17:15] any comments for the planning commission

[17:17] that are not related to the hearing

[17:19] tonight, then I now ask the panel to

[17:21] speak.

[17:24] First

[17:25] Okay.

[17:28] Now we have 13 minutes before

[17:32] First 10.

[17:35] Thank you. Daniel

[17:36] can you squeeze in for Daniel and so

[17:42] Good.

[17:43] So

[17:44] this um

[17:48] What is this?

[17:49] in different ways.

[17:59] No one believes you.

[18:03] gave us a solid effort, you know

[18:05] what I mean?

[18:06] A solid effort.

[18:14] So we have currently

[18:17] um multi-family residential

[18:20] zone and

[18:21] identified eligible communities.

[18:24] Uh excuse me, eligible properties.

[18:27] And then asked our GIS person to

[18:30] identify the total amount of land of

[18:32] acres in each one of the multi-family

[18:35] residential zones. So we've got 139

[18:39] acres in

[18:41] the 20 units

[18:43] We have 99 acres in the 14 units per

[18:46] acre.

[18:47] And we have 168

[18:49] acres in the uh

[18:52] eight units per acre. And that's the

[18:55] total of those properties that are

[18:56] eligible. Will you Will you repeat those

[18:59] again? Yeah, so that first one there is

[19:03] uh excuse me, so the north northwest one

[19:06] with the 139 acres, that is the

[19:10] multi-family

[19:11] uh residential 20 units.

[19:16] Then

[19:17] the one in the middle that's 99 acres,

[19:20] that's the 14 that's 14 units per acre.

[19:24] And then the first one

[19:26] in the southeast

[19:28] 162 acres, that is the eight units per

[19:32] acre.

[19:35] Um

[19:36] We actually have maps to go along with

[19:39] that. We've got

[19:41] this map that

[19:43] identifies that from back in

[19:48] 2005.

[19:50] So

[19:51] almost 21 years ago this is the map

[19:55] with the person there almost

[20:08] And also as this one works

[20:11] it shows the lot. A lot overlay that

[20:15] shows

[20:16] kind of properties that are within each

[20:18] one of these and the map stuff up

[20:21] with

[20:22] the ordinance.

[20:56] So

[20:57] this lighter one is the

[21:01] um

[21:02] 20 units per acre and 39

[21:20] This is the

[21:21] silver sky overlay.

[21:25] Um 14 units per acre.

[21:28] And then the other one

[21:37] That one is 162 units in the least the

[21:41] eight units per acre.

[21:45] There is a valid question

[21:51] as to whether or not with this

[21:55] multi-family residential eligible

[21:57] properties

[21:59] what that overlay it is associated with

[22:02] that. So is it something that

[22:05] um

[22:07] property owners coming in and getting

[22:08] certain bonus units to get that overlay

[22:10] for certain density

[22:12] or is it something additional to that

[22:15] when there's additional zone changes

[22:17] required?

[22:18] I think you put the idea of a question.

[22:20] I have a Brazilian question.

[22:22] I feel like we need a back way up.

[22:25] I mean I just feel like this

[22:28] I don't know where this came from. I

[22:30] don't understand what it means eligible

[22:32] properties. We're going back to a map

[22:34] from 2008.

[22:36] Maybe you can give me Maybe you can give

[22:38] me some

[22:41] Okay, so maybe you can give me some

[22:43] history as to where how this came to you

[22:46] and then once you give me that history

[22:50] where you went from

[22:54] It's not a point of order Randy. I'm

[22:56] asking him two questions.

[23:02] The question is

[23:04] this survey days off from the county

[23:06] map, right? Survey days I'm only eight

[23:08] months from the county also Randy. I'm

[23:10] the county commissioner.

[23:12] Do you approve any information?

[23:15] What?

[23:16] You want to approve two more and then we

[23:17] can go home.

[23:19] So Randy made that up. I'm just making a

[23:21] point. It is a point of order.

[23:26] Good night.

[23:28] Okay, I'm just checking.

[23:31] Thank you.

[23:33] All right, Chris your question was I I

[23:36] want to

[23:38] Yeah, exactly. I just want some history

[23:40] from your point of view

[23:43] and then

[23:44] how it came to you because I would

[23:46] assume you didn't just you know just

[23:48] didn't emerge. You you have a ton to do

[23:50] so I'm sure Steph came to you. How it

[23:52] came to you

[23:54] and then how you developed it if you

[23:57] went like you said you found this map

[23:58] from 2008. So just any history any

[24:01] context you can provide I would greatly

[24:03] appreciate. Yeah, it's part of our

[24:06] zoning code. So if you look at our

[24:08] zoning code I believe it's article two

[24:12] identifies the different zoning

[24:14] districts that we have and one of those

[24:16] is the multi-family residential zone.

[24:17] No, I know all that. I know all

[24:18] >> Okay, so if you scroll down in there

[24:23] this map is on there.

[24:24] Right.

[24:27] And so the interesting thing is

[24:30] it says for the multi-family residential

[24:32] zone to look at exhibit C.

[24:36] There is no exhibit C. This is

[24:37] identified as exhibit A.

[24:40] So we've got

[24:41] a whole slew of issues we're probably

[24:43] going to deal with

[24:45] as we move forward and one of those

[24:48] is an overlay district. It's an overlay district.

[24:53] Something that falls there.

[24:56] And so I've had a number of people who

[24:59] contacted

[25:00] and said

[25:02] they have got this property

[25:05] downtown small town family residential

[25:08] is it identified in there and

[25:11] we can have to go back and say

[25:14] is it overlay that was on the 2018

[25:17] map

[25:19] or is it overlay from the 2005

[25:22] map? So I get a whole bunch of

[25:26] calls

[25:27] from people in the public especially

[25:30] when the property comes up for sale.

[25:32] They say what can I do with it?

[25:36] Okay, that's the question we have. And

[25:39] then also

[25:40] I am

[25:45] multi-family

[25:48] which multi-family

[25:51] past scores are all done the way

[25:53] The housing password? Yeah, totally.

[25:56] Yeah, that's it.

[25:57] That's right.

[26:00] And so one of the things that we're

[26:01] trying to do is determine what that

[26:03] pipeline is.

[26:05] Right. How many units we have. Yeah. And

[26:07] that's How many potential units we have.

[26:09] Right. And so

[26:11] um

[26:13] These if you go on the bank if you

[26:16] Google your info

[26:18] land use map

[26:20] you can find a map

[26:21] zoning map

[26:22] and it comes up with GIS

[26:25] dashboard

[26:26] and make sure that you click full screen

[26:28] before you click

[26:29] agree.

[26:31] So you do full screen first and then you

[26:32] click agree.

[26:33] And then you have a bunch of different

[26:38] layers

[26:39] that you can click on and off. So you

[26:42] can I was on the map yeah last night.

[26:44] Okay, and so No, I was just on the map

[26:47] looking at some other things trying to

[26:48] figure out where that big map But it is

[26:51] what it is. Whatever. Okay.

[26:53] Yeah, so it's on there. So one thing

[26:55] we're trying to do is to get a question

[26:57] in the pipeline.

[26:59] Another thing we're trying to figure out

[27:00] is um

[27:03] with this how many acres are available

[27:06] um

[27:07] from this

[27:09] 2005

[27:12] that was approved

[27:13] and may or may not be part of

[27:16] the zoning code because it says see

[27:18] attachment C where

[27:20] it's actually

[27:21] labeled as attachment A.

[27:26] Where attachment C or exhibit C is

[27:29] um in that zoning code

[27:33] I don't I don't know.

[27:36] Um

[27:37] exhibit A map is actually

[27:41] titled that because of the ordinance.

[27:44] It's the ordinance that adopted this.

[27:46] I don't know if it's A.

[27:48] The actual exhibit C is in all this

[27:50] other information in the process of

[27:52] changing and all of

[27:54] this is in the land use code.

[27:58] is that.

[27:59] That's why I asked for

[28:01] And so the code that we have

[28:05] says see exhibit C.

[28:08] But there's no exhibit C. There's a

[28:10] problem with exhibit C based on what is

[28:13] written in the land use code. And that's

[28:14] what I identified as A.

[28:17] So when somebody comes in and says where

[28:18] is exhibit C

[28:21] It's in the the ordinance that adopted

[28:23] this.

[28:25] Yeah, and I I go from what's in there.

[28:28] Okay, that's what I'm saying.

[28:29] It makes sense.

[28:36] So one of the things that

[28:38] we're looking at is

[28:40] what do we have for the multi-family?

[28:42] What is permitted for multi-family? We

[28:44] have a certain number outside of this

[28:47] multi-family residential zone. We also

[28:50] have

[28:51] um

[28:52] overlay accommodation

[28:54] eligible properties and then we also

[28:56] have

[28:58] high density housing overlay

[29:02] um

[29:04] eligible properties that can go up to 35

[29:07] units per

[29:09] We have some of those that have been

[29:10] approved. There's one that's up above

[29:13] the

[29:13] Wingate Hotel.

[29:16] Um I think it's somewhere in the

[29:17] neighborhood of

[29:20] 320

[29:22] units that went up above the Wingate.

[29:24] Um

[29:25] Something like that. I don't remember.

[29:27] And they've had their building permits

[29:29] approved for a couple years and haven't

[29:31] pulled them. And now things have been

[29:33] called. They haven't recorded the

[29:36] plat

[29:37] on that.

[29:38] The question that we've got as we look

[29:39] at this pipeline is there a way to send that? We also

[29:44] have discussion in the summer about

[29:46] looking at the high density housing

[29:48] overlay.

[29:49] Um

[29:51] take these requirements for the

[29:55] we

[29:56] open up the security center.

[30:03] possible

[30:06] I think we

[30:09] This one is from Saratoga.

[30:12] Um

[30:18] She was in the planning. Is this

[30:20] something that

[30:23] the planning commission

[30:25] and

[30:26] that's some of those changes to

[30:30] I think it's the workforce housing

[30:32] portion of the wood city code

[30:35] and

[30:36] those to be eligible.

[30:38] That was changed. That was also changes

[30:40] that

[30:41] we were doing in the

[30:43] number of units available.

[30:46] two people

[30:47] And then

[30:48] I'm not aware of

[30:49] anything that has come in

[30:51] since changes in the summer time.

[30:56] Um

[30:57] But what I know we do have, we have

[30:59] talked with the folks who are

[31:02] posting the development of all the wood

[31:03] in the

[31:04] And that's just

[31:06] been said. So,

[31:08] is that something we would be

[31:10] considering the opportunities associated

[31:14] with the high density housing or

[31:16] overnight accommodations or

[31:23] What are the things that

[31:25] we really need to

[31:27] decide as

[31:29] we look at the

[31:31] modifying the zone and the zoning code.

[31:35] What do we want to do with this because

[31:36] there's

[31:37] four different

[31:39] ways that we can actually look at it.

[31:42] And so we've got this started on the

[31:44] special

[31:45] a couple weeks ago. It was delayed and

[31:47] put off until this week.

[31:49] Um because we really didn't have time

[31:51] and so

[31:52] just bringing that forward and all of

[31:55] the maps

[31:56] the original

[31:58] is on the county

[31:59] website.

[32:03] on the county GIS

[32:05] website.

[32:07] So these ones that I had printed out

[32:09] that are larger

[32:11] than these.

[32:12] It's so you can get a right view of

[32:15] where this is and what properties we

[32:17] have.

[32:18] Um there are three properties that have

[32:20] developed since 2005

[32:23] and if you move that property,

[32:26] they will continue and let them

[32:29] redevelop.

[32:30] We've got the subdivisions

[32:33] west of Milk Creek

[32:37] north of Highway 191.

[32:40] It's the um

[32:43] 40 units per acre.

[32:45] overlay

[32:46] But a lot of that property is already

[32:48] developed. So

[32:51] What will happen

[32:52] At this point we're at citizens. Yeah.

[32:55] And then I'd like to keep the hearing

[32:57] time separate. That's where you gather

[33:00] up all the information together and

[33:01] let's gather up our resources.

[33:03] >> that.

[33:05] Now let's gather up our resources

[33:07] together.

[33:07] >> one quick question for you. I know I'd

[33:09] like to just finish this up. But I just

[33:11] wanted to say enter. Let's finish the

[33:14] conversation here after you. Okay. Okay.

[33:17] Thank you. Just finish the hearing.

[33:19] I just wanted to ask

[33:21] I would just want to ask if all of these

[33:23] zones were districts. They weren't in.

[33:26] I couldn't walk in and say I want eight

[33:27] on eight because I'd have to go through

[33:29] a process to get that. Or is it by zone

[33:32] and by right? That's a good question.

[33:34] It's the overlay.

[33:37] We'll talk That's a long answer. Okay.

[33:42] But that's that's a great question.

[33:45] All right. So At this point we're going

[33:48] to move into the public hearings for

[33:49] tonight. There are 10 public hearings.

[33:52] The first one is a zoning text amendment

[33:55] uh to allow outfitters, guide services

[33:58] and facilities

[34:00] general outfitters, guide services and

[34:02] facilities non-ATV as permitted use in

[34:05] the light commercial zone.

[34:08] So that's the first hearing tonight.

[34:11] That's Mike Valentine request.

[34:14] And

[34:15] we have

[34:17] Are you here? I'm here. So why don't we

[34:19] start with Mike? Why don't you come up

[34:22] Mike Valentine? It did say Mike in the

[34:25] packet. All right. Why don't you come

[34:27] up, introduce yourself

[34:29] and speak so that the microphone can

[34:31] capture you and we'll I'll be the

[34:32] microphone. It'll pick you up. It'll

[34:34] pick you I think It'll pick you up.

[34:37] >> Well, okay. Right here. Why don't you

[34:39] have a seat over here?

[34:44] Start out with an introduction and then tell us about your request. So

[34:49] my name is Mick Valentine.

[34:52] I'm Well, Mick, Mike, whatever. I'm

[34:54] officially Michael. I've been operating

[34:59] an e-bike uh company called e-bike Moab.

[35:02] I'm at my property what I've owned for

[35:04] about 30 years. 6.8 acres in 6.0

[35:08] 8 acres size

[35:10] and it's zoned currently light

[35:14] So if you just want to

[35:16] cement plant or

[35:17] chemical plant or whatever, but I'd like

[35:19] to be able to

[35:20] generate a bit more income for the city

[35:24] possibly get into outfitting, have that

[35:26] option.

[35:27] So we can kind of get people down there

[35:29] with some boats because it's a big chunk

[35:31] of land.

[35:32] It'd be nice to just kind of put it to a

[35:34] bit more bit more use, you know? And

[35:37] good for the town, good for the uh

[35:41] Good for the visitors. You know, we've

[35:43] got a great reputation. Uh

[35:45] and your views, uh questions are our

[35:48] main priority, financials.

[35:51] That's reflected business.

[35:58] Thank you, Mick.

[36:00] Anything else for the planning

[36:01] commission?

[36:04] It would be great if you guys could get

[36:06] the outfitter. Yeah.

[36:08] And so that appreciate your time,

[36:10] your thoughts. The Yeah.

[36:13] Don't see a downside to it.

[36:15] Okay. Sounds good. Thank you, Mick. All

[36:18] right. You're welcome. You can have a

[36:19] seat. Yeah. Take a seat. We take comment

[36:21] and then we'll have the

[36:24] So the next phase of this public hearing

[36:27] is

[36:28] for the Mike Valentine zoning text

[36:31] amendment hearing. It's now the second

[36:33] part of the hearing. Does anybody here

[36:35] in the public hearing have any comments

[36:37] they'd like to make about the zoning

[36:39] text amendment?

[36:43] I think everybody must be here for the

[36:44] second.

[36:47] Anybody online?

[36:48] No. Well, just Sarah and this other

[36:51] gentleman. Okay.

[36:53] And

[36:55] Luke Burford, do you have anything for

[36:59] the zoning

[37:00] text amendment

[37:01] Mike Valentine?

[37:03] No, I don't. I don't.

[37:05] Sounds good. Thank you.

[37:07] Sarah?

[37:09] If we can

[37:13] have some Have Does anybody Is anybody

[37:16] ready to make a motion on the Mike

[37:17] Valentine text amendment and then we can

[37:21] start discussion? Do we have to have

[37:23] someone I'd like to make a motion with

[37:25] Booth.

[37:26] And then we get

[37:28] Yeah, we can use Actually, yeah. Randy,

[37:31] I think Megan brought up a good point.

[37:33] Do you want to go over the staff

[37:34] >> Sure. Yeah. amendment first. So

[37:38] staff comments and then Andrew will

[37:40] Randy will entertain your motion.

[37:41] >> Yeah. So Mick Valentine, of course, is

[37:44] requesting that the County Planning

[37:45] Commission recommend to the County

[37:47] Commission that the Grand County Land

[37:49] Use Code be amended to permit outfitter,

[37:52] guide services and facilities except for

[37:55] ATV and outfitter, guide services and

[37:57] rental businesses as a permitted or

[37:59] conditional use in the light industrial

[38:01] zone. Mr. Valentine Valentine currently

[38:05] owns the only light industrial property

[38:09] in the unincorporated area of in the

[38:11] unincorporated area of Grand County with

[38:14] a

[38:15] Spanish Valley as far as I can find. The

[38:19] property is located at the 825 West King

[38:22] Creek Boulevard. It is used as an e-bike

[38:24] business. The Grand County Code

[38:27] currently identifies various land uses

[38:29] as permitted in light industrial zone

[38:32] such as the uses include upper story

[38:36] residential, county estate, shop/storage

[38:40] yard, major utilities, building material

[38:44] sales and yard, repair services, RV and

[38:47] boat storage, and manufacturing and

[38:50] production. Those are all permitted uses

[38:53] in the light industrial zone. Uh the

[38:55] Grand County Land Use Code also allows

[38:58] outfitters, guide services and

[39:00] facilities non-ATV

[39:02] as conditional use permits

[39:04] uh in the multi-family residential zone

[39:07] and several commercial zones.

[39:09] Staff finds the request to be consistent

[39:11] with other permitted uses in the light

[39:13] industrial zone and would recommend

[39:16] that the Planning Commission recommend

[39:19] uh that the County Commission

[39:23] All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

[39:26] All right. And there is a recommended

[39:28] motion in here.

[39:29] So Randy, if you'd like to

[39:32] You had your hand up first. If you'd

[39:34] like to make a motion. I did. I'd just

[39:37] like to move that we do approve the zone

[39:39] change and the amendment and I had a

[39:42] question to ask after that but that's my

[39:45] Okay, do we have a second?

[39:48] I will second that.

[39:51] Sure, it's a second.

[39:53] All right,

[39:54] so now we'll go into discussion and

[39:56] Randy if you had a question you'd be my

[39:57] first list. It says except for ATV or

[40:01] other guide services.

[40:03] Which kind of confuses me.

[40:05] We're going to allow guides

[40:07] in their commercial

[40:10] or in our R&G which range and grazing

[40:12] here anywhere around this valley?

[40:14] Unless you're in the valley.

[40:16] That's not happening.

[40:19] I've been on all these rocks

[40:21] and you're not range and grazing. Maybe

[40:23] a few

[40:24] lizards and that's about all you're

[40:25] going to get raised. Yeah, so Your

[40:27] question is why would we exclude the ATV

[40:30] or guide service and rental businesses?

[40:32] >> Thank you. Yeah, why would they exclude

[40:33] that guide service and allow everybody

[40:35] else? Yeah.

[40:36] Um, and I can only go off of what I

[40:39] would assume which is that there may

[40:42] have been in the past some issues with

[40:45] um, in a commercial zone having ATV

[40:48] outfitters. It's all in our code. We

[40:52] have two

[40:54] outfitters. One is non-ATV and one is

[40:58] ATV. And the ATV ones are restricted

[41:04] where they can go. The non-ATV ones are

[41:07] a little more from the service.

[41:10] Um, I guess there must be some issue

[41:13] with Neil, we visited at a different

[41:16] time and yeah. Well, I think in this in

[41:18] this case the landowner is not

[41:20] requesting we add ATV services.

[41:22] >> No, he's not. It's a little really it's

[41:24] a little bit different.

[41:26] Seems pretty interesting to me at least.

[41:30] All right.

[41:32] Uh,

[41:33] just to make clear this is not a

[41:35] conditional use. Yeah. This is a

[41:37] permitted use within the zoning

[41:40] designation.

[41:41] >> This is a change to the land use code.

[41:44] Right. Right now

[41:46] that square for light industrial and

[41:50] housing is blank. Okay. So, either you

[41:53] do B as permitted

[41:56] or C as conditional.

[41:58] >> Right. And the request is you

[42:00] you've got a lot of

[42:02] light industrial uses that are permitted

[42:04] uses that are more intense Yeah. than

[42:08] this type of use. And so that's why they

[42:10] allowed this than to approve it.

[42:12] He is permitted but he could also

[42:13] recommend that it be a conditional use

[42:15] instead. And just a moment. Just to

[42:17] clarify to you Andrew, this is the only

[42:21] property that's light industrial zone.

[42:23] That's not correct, Andrew?

[42:25] We have light industrial zone in office

[42:27] and that's

[42:28] Not yet. That's just I thought it is.

[42:31] Um

[42:35] All right, my comments are going to be

[42:36] that first that if the applicant has

[42:38] asked for what they're asking for that's

[42:41] all we can go with. So, what what Andrew

[42:43] is presenting is what the applicant is

[42:44] asked for.

[42:46] Um

[42:48] We have

[42:49] two other light industrial areas in the

[42:51] county. One is the batch plant

[42:53] on the on the number

[42:55] of Keys batch plant.

[42:57] And I don't remember how many acres it

[42:59] is but it is close to four Yeah, five

[43:01] probably. And then one I found that I

[43:03] thought was interesting when I first

[43:04] found out that we were

[43:06] looking at something that in the

[43:07] industrial zone I thought well and I

[43:09] actually thought this had already been

[43:10] annexed because it's totally surrounded

[43:13] by city. It's going to need to get city

[43:15] services this this particular lot.

[43:18] And um

[43:21] So, I was wondering and I got looking

[43:23] and I thought well that's

[43:24] that would be I thought that had already

[43:26] been annexed into the city.

[43:28] And it even come on its tax notice it's

[43:30] taxed in the city. I don't know why.

[43:32] The other one is behind

[43:35] um

[43:36] It's 28 acres and it's behind this

[43:39] McGraw campground there on the northern.

[43:42] I have no idea when that happened. I'm

[43:43] sure it's an older one because at some

[43:46] point that whole area had light

[43:48] industrial uses.

[43:50] Um, it was probably part of the old um

[43:54] gas plant I guess.

[43:56] And of course

[43:58] and our

[43:59] Keys batch plant's been there

[44:02] for longer than I've been in the valley

[44:03] I think. So, it's been put in that one.

[44:05] So, those two parcels are light

[44:06] industrial. Not that I have a problem

[44:08] with either one of them and I think

[44:11] honestly

[44:11] I don't think this is a bad idea.

[44:14] The problems I'm having one is it's in

[44:17] the annexation area and it's surrounded

[44:18] by city and will have to have city

[44:20] services.

[44:21] And two, we're so close to getting our

[44:25] land use code written.

[44:27] Let's not break something we're going to

[44:28] have to fix because we're doing that.

[44:30] We're breaking this ordinance the land

[44:32] use code all over the place and we just

[44:34] need to get it fixed.

[44:36] I think it's it is so close let's have

[44:38] it.

[44:39] I think it's a good fit personally.

[44:41] We take it. I think it's a good picture

[44:43] of a little bit and you break some

[44:44] glass.

[44:45] So, we've got um Mary Aaron. Randy, did

[44:48] you have more comments? No, I'm good.

[44:50] Okay. So, I'll be after Aaron.

[44:53] Or you want to go before Aaron? Or you

[44:54] want Aaron to go first? I think he's got

[44:55] that list before.

[44:57] I I've got a couple of new things per

[44:58] county. I'll come back.

[44:59] >> Okay.

[45:01] Can I ask Mick a question? Sure. So,

[45:03] Mick you you stated that you've been

[45:05] running an outfitting service out of

[45:07] there for 30 years. No, sorry. I'm on

[45:10] the property. Okay, got you. I'm sorry.

[45:12] I misunderstood. And then during the

[45:13] pandemic

[45:15] lack of better idea I started doing the e-bike business which took off.

[45:20] >> Out of that property? Yes, but it's not

[45:22] really utilizing the space. Okay.

[45:25] You know, of course it has business

[45:26] licenses and everything.

[45:28] It's my mom and I see.

[45:30] Um, but I just figured there's more

[45:32] potential there.

[45:34] Okay.

[45:34] >> Because it's 6.8 acres. Right.

[45:36] >> And it's got no parking for maybe 60

[45:39] cars. So, do you mind if I make a couple

[45:41] comments? So, I I I think You're

[45:44] absolutely wrong. If if you're okay if you're okay with me saying this, in

[45:47] theory you already you are already

[45:50] running an outfitting business out of

[45:51] it. I understand you want to expand it.

[45:53] Um, I would say the same thing. My issues are that how did the land use

[45:59] code get broken? This is how it got

[46:01] broken is that we all along have made

[46:05] these minor changes, juggles and

[46:08] specifically if you're messing with the

[46:10] land use code

[46:12] and we're not updating the standards,

[46:14] this is how it became the mess that it

[46:16] is.

[46:17] And so my recommendation would be that

[46:20] we incorporate what Mick wants to do

[46:24] into the update

[46:26] and we just allow that process to occur.

[46:28] He's already running a business out of

[46:30] there. He might not be able to do it.

[46:31] It'll probably take us for saying maybe

[46:33] nine months.

[46:35] But so there's we're going to give them

[46:37] a laundry list of the things that need

[46:39] to be updated but that we allow it to

[46:42] again do it holistically cuz if all

[46:44] we're doing is updating the table but

[46:45] not the standards that go to the table,

[46:47] we're further breaking

[46:50] the broken land use code. So, and I

[46:53] think overall I think it's a really bad

[46:56] idea to manipulate our land use code for

[46:59] one property.

[47:01] I think it's a really bad idea and

[47:03] that's how we've gotten into the pickle

[47:05] that we're in is that obviously over

[47:07] time with different commissions and

[47:08] different P&Z directors we've done this,

[47:11] right? We've done it. We've done it.

[47:13] and thus we have the

[47:15] disaster that we have. So, that's my

[47:18] opinion that you know, you you give Mick

[47:21] what he wants but we do it with the

[47:23] consultants and we do it right.

[47:26] Any other comments?

[47:30] I'm listening to

[47:33] So, like I'm very aware of that fact

[47:36] that we need light light industrial like

[47:38] it's been shown

[47:40] to to me

[47:41] and I'm like I don't want to lose that

[47:43] zoning but I'm also wondering if it

[47:46] would be better

[47:47] like if I was applying to this it would

[47:49] be like change the zoning instead of

[47:51] like uh, change your zoning of your

[47:54] property rather than asking us to change

[47:58] our whole program. And that's what where

[48:01] I'm kind of like I like industrial

[48:03] zoning. Like I feel like that's a good

[48:05] spot and I feel like he's asking kind of

[48:07] for like a downgrade.

[48:10] >> Yeah. And but like I'm not concerned

[48:12] about just one property. I'm concerned

[48:14] about the county in the whole and that's

[48:16] why I

[48:17] I'm very sympathetic to Mary

[48:20] Mary's argument and and it's like

[48:23] yeah, we have an applicant but is it

[48:25] like

[48:27] do but

[48:28] you know, is it better

[48:30] if it's better to be like

[48:32] somebody wants to use this use, yeah,

[48:34] just just change your zoning to

[48:36] commercial and then you get it. And then

[48:39] I'm just like

[48:41] play that game like play our legal like

[48:43] our legal framework on that. But you

[48:46] know, I just

[48:47] I'm just kind of like

[48:50] that's where I'm like torn with this.

[48:52] Like I see it as a like what I see the

[48:54] zoning as like as a

[48:56] as usage impacts go up, it should almost

[49:00] include everything on the bottom but

[49:01] we're also in charge of steering the

[49:04] development of the county and that

[49:06] industrial use or industrial use

[49:09] is something that we really prioritize

[49:11] or we need. And so that's where I'm kind

[49:13] of like

[49:15] you know, but I'm we're also not in the

[49:16] game of dictating what to do with your

[49:18] And you get you have the outer side

[49:20] that's a light industrial special

[49:22] service overlay area and then the piles.

[49:25] Property those piles?

[49:28] Is that the batch plant area? Piles is I

[49:30] mean the batch plant is Keys in the

[49:32] south. And the other one is behind the

[49:34] zoning. And everybody have that that um

[49:38] the I'm just saying

[49:41] that's a whole different baby. To the

[49:43] back It is like the back the back plant

[49:44] to cut straight across pretty much from

[49:46] where plateau comes out. But I also have

[49:48] a problem with

[49:50] my time.

[49:57] I mine is expensive.

[50:03] No, I just you know, it's like I was

[50:05] having a conversation with an economist

[50:07] today. Um you know, one of the things

[50:09] that he brought up is, you know, one of

[50:11] the things that that we do terrible job

[50:13] with here in Grand County is saying who

[50:16] we are and where we want to go.

[50:18] Um and when you look at it and you look

[50:20] at our economy, we we think of this idea

[50:24] that whatever we're going to choose

[50:26] next.

[50:27] Um it's going to have to be an export,

[50:29] right? And manufacturing's probably not

[50:31] a reality here. Agriculture's probably

[50:33] not a reality here anymore. So, the the best the best export that we

[50:38] have is actually going to be tourism.

[50:40] And having worked in the tourism

[50:42] industry for a long a long time and and

[50:44] looking at it now, there are not very

[50:46] many places where you can actually

[50:48] diversify your tourism business here in

[50:51] Grand County.

[50:52] The city of Moab, take it off the table.

[50:54] There's no more outfitting businesses.

[50:56] So, our number one export, right, which

[50:58] is tourism, has no place to diversify,

[51:01] which means that we have no place to

[51:03] grow, we have nowhere to actually become

[51:06] the destination that that that we can be

[51:08] because we do nothing but delay and

[51:11] restrict Moab. And until we can go ahead

[51:14] and take those delays and the

[51:15] restrictions off businesses, we're going

[51:17] to keep having this stagnant economy.

[51:20] So, those are the viewpoints that I have

[51:21] about this. Do you want to explain? Um

[51:26] We had spoke I've already spoke. If you

[51:27] want to speak, you can speak. Mary, you

[51:29] speak and then we'll get to you. Yeah, I

[51:30] can do about you if you speak first. But

[51:32] no.

[51:34] I So, Well, I I had I had

[51:38] uh

[51:39] two kinds of concerns. One one is I

[51:41] don't know maybe it's the opposite or

[51:43] reflects Aaron's which is, you know,

[51:46] what is the status of light industrial?

[51:48] Do we have enough light industrial to do

[51:50] woodworking, communication towers,

[51:53] machine shops or not? So, of course that

[51:55] would actually argue keep it light

[51:58] industrial in some ways cuz you could go

[51:59] back and do something uh else, but it

[52:04] would be really nice to have some This

[52:06] is the kind of thing where when we do this comprehensive land use

[52:11] code, hopefully as we figure out what

[52:14] zones are actually going to be in these places, we get some sense of how

[52:20] much of what we have for different kinds

[52:23] of zones, which I think Andrew's trying

[52:25] to do with uh you know, what what kinds

[52:27] of densities do we have to allow people

[52:30] to have housing. Uh the other one the

[52:33] other the other thing I thought was

[52:36] uh

[52:36] interesting, we're going to make this a

[52:39] maybe permitted

[52:40] right? Or

[52:42] conditional. I think it's a an important

[52:45] distinction. If we were doing this

[52:47] holistically, which is what I think we

[52:49] actually ought to do in the land use

[52:51] process, then we would look at each of

[52:54] these other

[52:56] zones. I don't know, maybe highway

[52:57] commercial. There were four or so zones

[53:00] that say conditionally you can do this

[53:02] use and treat them equal to this light

[53:06] industrial that doesn't have it right

[53:07] now and think well, maybe this is

[53:11] something that we really really need and

[53:14] go across the board and figure out some

[53:15] of those maybe permitted. Some other

[53:19] of those

[53:20] uh zoning things uh should be

[53:22] conditional. I think I'm in favor of

[53:26] doing this as a comprehensive process.

[53:28] That's probably where I would come down.

[53:30] Okay, thanks, honey. And Mary, you had a

[53:32] Yeah, a couple just couple of

[53:34] um

[53:35] remarks.

[53:36] Everything that Brian said and

[53:38] everything Randy said and everything

[53:39] Aaron said is the perfect example of why

[53:42] we need to fix the code code

[53:44] holistically.

[53:45] Um

[53:46] it's going to correct all the issues we

[53:49] have. I really don't And I I do believe we need to keep it

[53:53] industrial, but just allow that use cuz

[53:55] he could sell it tomorrow and then we

[53:56] could use it for whatever industrial

[53:57] uses allowed, but we need to fix all

[53:59] that in our our matrix. We need to find

[54:03] one of the other problems we're having

[54:05] with like um Andrew or

[54:08] Randy just asked is what's the

[54:09] difference? We don't have a definition.

[54:12] We should have definitions for that. And

[54:15] when this was first written, we didn't

[54:17] have the people in the bike problems we

[54:19] have now, the bike shops and the bike

[54:21] areas and and the and even e-bikes at

[54:24] that point. So, that's a lot of the

[54:25] reasons why the definition here doesn't

[54:27] really match.

[54:29] So, those are the things we need to get

[54:31] fixed. I 100% I think we should wait

[54:33] till all that's done and we can fix it

[54:35] all, get it ready, and all the things

[54:37] that people are having a problem with

[54:39] um I I'm not saying our land use code

[54:41] will be perfect, but at least it will

[54:44] answer some of the questions we're

[54:45] having and we won't have these arguments

[54:47] and everybody's answers will be

[54:48] answered.

[54:50] I And definitions to me are so

[54:52] important. You wouldn't believe how

[54:55] often they were used and needed to be

[54:56] used because a definition tells you,

[54:58] well, this is what that means and this

[55:00] is where it's allowed.

[55:01] And we need to do all of that. There's

[55:03] just a lot of work to happen.

[55:06] May I uh

[55:07] May I explain? We're going to have We're

[55:09] going to finish our delivery. This this

[55:11] is the old stuff.

[55:13] We're going to have We're going to

[55:14] finish our delivered deliberations at

[55:16] the planning commission.

[55:18] >> And the public hearing notice does say

[55:20] ordinance amended to Grand County zoning

[55:23] text to permit outfitter guide services

[55:25] non-ATV

[55:27] as a permitted or conditional use in

[55:29] light industrial zone. So, we'd actually

[55:32] uh We have the options. To do it

[55:35] or Really? So, that we have an option of

[55:38] either Yeah, so the public hearing was

[55:39] either permitted or conditional use.

[55:42] Right now it's My motion's permitted.

[55:44] Either permitted or conditional use. My

[55:46] motion's permitted.

[55:48] Jerry, can I say something?

[55:52] Sure. Sure, Sarah.

[55:54] Um I brought a project to the county in

[55:57] the late summer of 2021

[56:01] and I was told

[56:03] just hang on. We're going to have the

[56:05] land use code. We're going to have

[56:06] everything done by next summer.

[56:09] And so

[56:11] um as a as a citizen, as a person,

[56:15] how do I say this? I don't trust us.

[56:17] >> [laughter]

[56:19] >> Um you know, we keep telling people

[56:21] we're going to have this, we're going to

[56:22] have this, and yet here's a business

[56:25] owner who's trying to encourage tourism,

[56:28] um who's trying to offer a different

[56:31] kind of service.

[56:33] I think we need to get out of people's

[56:35] way.

[56:39] Thank you, Sarah.

[56:42] Megan, did you ever come in? I'm going

[56:43] to piggyback off of Sarah a little bit

[56:45] because

[56:48] this is a repeat issue that we have at

[56:49] this table where

[56:51] and I understand the land use code is

[56:53] what's holding us back.

[56:55] However, we have someone who is an established business owner at

[57:01] this point who is already running

[57:03] something out of this property.

[57:07] If we wait until the land use code and

[57:09] say keep waiting, keep waiting because

[57:11] we've been doing this for several years

[57:13] now,

[57:14] that's a whole season that this

[57:16] business is going to miss out on because

[57:19] we don't have our land use code done.

[57:21] So, if we're going to be tabling these

[57:23] things because the land use code is not

[57:24] done, then I am going to make a

[57:26] suggestion that we don't focus on

[57:28] anything but the land use code until the

[57:29] land use code is done because I am tired

[57:33] of holding people back from trying to

[57:35] make a living in this town. We are not

[57:37] supporting our economy by continuing to

[57:40] drag our feet on this land use code

[57:41] update.

[57:43] Okay.

[57:45] Last question. So,

[57:48] in Robertson's thing,

[57:51] you can offer an amended motion. Can you

[57:53] offer an alternative motion? Yeah.

[57:56] So, can I put an alternative motion that

[57:58] we do this as a conditional use permit

[58:01] and then have the debate around that?

[58:02] That's up to you. You made a motion.

[58:06] Is that Is that permitted in Robertson's

[58:08] rule? Yeah, you you can you can you can

[58:10] propose an amended motion. Get to vote

[58:13] on it. Can I propose a alternative Is it

[58:15] amended or alternative motion?

[58:18] >> You can In this case, I would think you

[58:19] could amend it from permanent to Yeah. I

[58:23] just want to have that discussion about

[58:24] it.

[58:25] >> I think that this is just a

[58:26] recommendation to the county commission.

[58:30] And I just want to have the conversation

[58:32] on that. So, I'll I'll propose a motion.

[58:34] I'll second it. We have a motion on the

[58:36] floor with a second.

[58:38] And we have to deal with that. Oh, wait.

[58:40] That's the person that made the motion,

[58:41] whether or not they would amend their

[58:42] motion. Depending on what it is you say

[58:44] and how the person that made the motion

[58:46] reacts to it and the second.

[58:48] Otherwise, you cannot. Well, if that's

[58:50] the rule, then what we do is vote on it

[58:52] and if it doesn't pass,

[58:54] then we can make a new motion. Why don't

[58:55] we just do that? Yeah, that's fine.

[58:57] Yeah, sure, cuz I'm not changing my

[58:58] motion. So, we we have a motion on the

[59:01] floor.

[59:02] Um

[59:03] if we Do we have any more comments?

[59:06] I do see.

[59:07] Go ahead. I I really like what Sarah

[59:09] said and and and

[59:12] I appreciate Michelle and what she said,

[59:15] but I've been the guy sitting there

[59:16] waiting for that nine months.

[59:18] And that's a big deal.

[59:20] It's a big deal to him cuz it's his

[59:22] nickels, not yours. Okay? We're here to

[59:25] protect private property rights along

[59:27] with the public good. And that is all.

[59:30] It is not our job to decide how many

[59:32] units we're going to create. We're going

[59:34] to look at the areas that we think these

[59:35] units could be good in.

[59:38] It's what he's doing and asking for in

[59:41] that zone should be the only thing in my

[59:43] mind considered.

[59:44] Is it a viable use in that zone?

[59:47] It's an additive. It doesn't affect

[59:49] anything we will do now or later.

[59:52] And we don't like it. It seems like a

[59:54] fair use to me, but I think motors

[59:55] should be included.

[59:57] I look at that and go, "Yeah, guides are

[59:59] our business."

[1:00:01] And the sentence Grand County, we did

[1:00:02] that in '91.

[1:00:04] We made those choices.

[1:00:06] I was there when those happened. Then I

[1:00:08] watched the Richard Bryce show take off.

[1:00:11] That was a big part of that. I want to

[1:00:13] fix that.

[1:00:15] That's why I'm sitting on this board,

[1:00:17] hopefully to help get that done.

[1:00:19] So, my motion stands as read as a

[1:00:21] permitted use to allow that in that zone

[1:00:24] as an additive to the zone. Nothing

[1:00:26] more, nothing less.

[1:00:28] Let's vote and move on so these guys can

[1:00:30] go home and the next guys can step in

[1:00:32] the arena.

[1:00:33] All right, did you have anything? Yeah,

[1:00:35] just just two small things. One is Well,

[1:00:38] let's just make sure that we're not

[1:00:39] letting perfect get in the way of good.

[1:00:41] And then second, that we are setting the

[1:00:43] precedent for the folks who will be

[1:00:45] doing our next meeting. So, I'm sure

[1:00:47] that they will be reviewing these. I'm

[1:00:50] sure all three applicants at some point

[1:00:52] are going to come by and look at this.

[1:00:53] And so, the actions that we're taking

[1:00:55] now will be providing them direction as

[1:00:58] we move into that update. I agree with

[1:01:00] that. All right, I see.

[1:01:02] No more comments?

[1:01:04] Then we'll go ahead and have the vote.

[1:01:06] All of those in favor of Randy's motion,

[1:01:08] make this a permanent

[1:01:10] um addition.

[1:01:12] Permission permitted. So, permitted use

[1:01:14] it.

[1:01:15] >> Permitted use. Zone. All those in favor?

[1:01:21] And sir Yep, sir voted for it as well.

[1:01:23] [clears throat]

[1:01:23] >> a yes.

[1:01:24] All of those All of those against?

[1:01:28] One.

[1:01:29] And any abstentions? Two.

[1:01:32] Oh, okay. It's varied. There'll be two

[1:01:34] against. Five for, two against. Motion

[1:01:36] passes. I think

[1:01:40] All right, with that, we'll move on to

[1:01:42] the public hearing the next public

[1:01:45] hearing for tonight.

[1:01:47] I agree with Todd.

[1:01:49] Yep, thank you, mate.

[1:01:53] And

[1:01:54] we can go right ahead.

[1:02:00] On this one,

[1:02:02] um

[1:02:03] this is an ordinance of amending the

[1:02:05] Grand Grand County zoning map from range

[1:02:08] and grazing to resort commercial for

[1:02:10] Mini New Ventures LLC. Is Dean present?

[1:02:13] I am. This is one

[1:02:15] that we've had come before the

[1:02:16] commission before. I think most of us

[1:02:18] were here then.

[1:02:20] They asked them to for some more

[1:02:22] information and

[1:02:25] the request that time was commercial and

[1:02:27] this is is different actually. It's

[1:02:29] resort.

[1:02:35] So, with that,

[1:02:36] would the applicant like to come up and

[1:02:38] address the commission?

[1:02:57] Hi.

[1:03:02] Thank you for coming in and thank you

[1:03:04] for addressing the commission. If you

[1:03:05] could start by giving us your name.

[1:03:08] Hi, I'm Ashley Steens.

[1:03:11] I'm Mark Steen. And her father.

[1:03:15] Uh thank you for taking our request

[1:03:18] again.

[1:03:20] The last time we wrote was I think about

[1:03:21] 3 months ago and we haven't heard

[1:03:23] anything until this month. So, we've

[1:03:26] been very patient and appreciate

[1:03:30] attention to our application.

[1:03:33] Um

[1:03:33] I think we really outlined all of the

[1:03:36] questions that were proposed to us in

[1:03:38] the last meeting in our letter.

[1:03:40] Um

[1:03:41] I trust that you've all received it and

[1:03:43] read it. If you have questions about it,

[1:03:45] I think that'd probably be the best way

[1:03:47] for us to

[1:03:49] approach it cuz we really were very

[1:03:51] clear and outlined everything that you

[1:03:52] guys asked last time. So, I don't really

[1:03:54] know what there could be left to

[1:03:56] wonder. Okay, that's fair.

[1:03:59] Um

[1:04:01] we uh

[1:04:03] I think in the this is kind of the open

[1:04:05] part where we haven't made a motion yet.

[1:04:09] And uh we'll begin our deliberation

[1:04:11] after we have a better understanding of

[1:04:13] the request. I think you know, your

[1:04:15] information came out in the in the

[1:04:17] packet and

[1:04:18] I thought it was quite clear, too. But I

[1:04:20] think it's a good time for anybody on

[1:04:22] the commission to ask you folks if they

[1:04:26] have uh any questions or need any

[1:04:28] clarification.

[1:04:30] Can Andrew give kind of a a report or

[1:04:34] show your your background? That'd be

[1:04:35] great just to have that context.

[1:04:38] Sure. So, the background is the Steen

[1:04:41] family is requesting a zone map

[1:04:43] amendment for a property they own from

[1:04:46] range range and grazing to resort

[1:04:49] commercial to accommodate various

[1:04:51] outdoor recreation uses,

[1:04:54] primary and secondary, consistent with

[1:04:56] the Grand County land use code.

[1:04:58] The

[1:05:00] um zone change request is consistent

[1:05:02] with the future land use plan for

[1:05:03] Spanish Valley, which was adopted

[1:05:05] December 17th of 2024, repealing and

[1:05:08] replacing section six

[1:05:10] of the land use code uh land use

[1:05:14] um section of the 2030 general plan. The

[1:05:18] applicant came before the planning

[1:05:19] commission April 14th of 2025

[1:05:23] and presented their plans for the

[1:05:25] property. The planning commission

[1:05:26] provided substantial feedback. They

[1:05:29] concluded a request for more

[1:05:30] clarification on

[1:05:33] um the following uh and resolution

[1:05:35] clarification and resolution of the

[1:05:37] following issues. One, annexation

[1:05:39] status. Two, infrastructure and access.

[1:05:42] Three, use intent and scope. Four, food

[1:05:46] truck. Five, ATV accessible event space.

[1:05:51] Six,

[1:05:52] future land use plan alignment. And

[1:05:55] seven, environmental and scenic

[1:05:57] protection. Applicant uh

[1:05:59] sent a letter on July 22nd of 2025

[1:06:03] responding to the feedback received at

[1:06:06] the planning commission meeting and in

[1:06:08] April of 2025.

[1:06:11] The multiple planning commission general

[1:06:12] public and that response is attached

[1:06:16] from Ms. Steen. Staff finds that the

[1:06:19] applicant has adequately addressed the

[1:06:22] feedback to the April 14th, 2025

[1:06:25] meeting. Furthermore, the staff finds

[1:06:26] the application is consistent with the

[1:06:29] future land use plan

[1:06:31] of Spanish Valley, which designates the

[1:06:33] property as resort and tourist

[1:06:35] recreation. Additionally, staff finds

[1:06:38] that

[1:06:38] page 45 of the future land use plan of

[1:06:41] Spanish Valley translates the resort and

[1:06:44] tourist recreation to resort commercial

[1:06:46] and/or resort special.

[1:06:49] Uh therefore, based on these findings,

[1:06:50] staff recommends that the planning

[1:06:52] commission recommend approval of the

[1:06:53] zoning map amendment consistent with the

[1:06:56] general plan to the county commission.

[1:07:01] So, we didn't start this process. Uh we

[1:07:06] first became aware of the fact that we

[1:07:09] were in a

[1:07:10] area that was going to be should be

[1:07:12] zoned resort commercial.

[1:07:15] And uh

[1:07:16] so, we followed that up with meetings

[1:07:19] and then our application and then we

[1:07:21] were

[1:07:21] surprised when there were so many

[1:07:23] objections to the fact that we were

[1:07:25] doing what the county planning

[1:07:28] department had recommended. So,

[1:07:31] uh

[1:07:31] took quite a bit of time and my daughter

[1:07:33] and I answered all of the questions that

[1:07:35] were raised at that hearing.

[1:07:38] And

[1:07:39] uh we think we've addressed them

[1:07:41] adequately.

[1:07:42] Uh it is a commercial operation up there

[1:07:46] at the present time

[1:07:48] uh operated by the Bynum family's uh Raven's Rim zip

[1:07:53] line.

[1:07:54] And uh they have plans to make it a a

[1:07:56] better operation and it's a commercial

[1:07:59] operation. It's not

[1:08:00] uh

[1:08:01] the plans for a resort. And you're not

[1:08:04] going to have a uh

[1:08:06] Cloud Rock development.

[1:08:08] You need to worry about a uh

[1:08:11] what's it called? Echo Canyon.

[1:08:13] It's not uh not in the

[1:08:18] uh our aligned path to resort. And And

[1:08:21] that's because the property, which I

[1:08:24] hope some of you are very familiar with,

[1:08:26] is

[1:08:27] uh

[1:08:28] basically uh barren wasteland

[1:08:31] uh particularly out where the zip line

[1:08:32] is and the uh

[1:08:36] the Slickrock Trail.

[1:08:37] And then we've got the world's most

[1:08:40] popular

[1:08:42] uh four-wheel drive uh

[1:08:44] extravaganza,

[1:08:46] all of which we inherited sort of

[1:08:49] by standing back and watching the

[1:08:51] development.

[1:08:52] Uh my father

[1:08:54] uh was approached back in 1967,

[1:08:58] '68 uh for a motorcycle trail

[1:09:01] across the

[1:09:03] this property, which it's the only

[1:09:05] private property of both the uh uh

[1:09:08] of any size. And

[1:09:09] so, my dad granted the easement and

[1:09:13] uh

[1:09:14] I imagine there were maybe 20 or 30

[1:09:16] people used it a year and suddenly it

[1:09:18] became the world's most famous Slickrock

[1:09:22] bike trail.

[1:09:24] And then uh which is fine and

[1:09:28] they didn't interfere with anything we

[1:09:30] were doing, and uh

[1:09:31] I've never been on it on a bicycle, I'll

[1:09:33] tell you that.

[1:09:35] And then the uh

[1:09:38] Hell's Revenge became

[1:09:40] uh phenomenal uh increase. If If anyone

[1:09:43] goes up there, there's hundreds and

[1:09:46] hundreds of people every day

[1:09:48] uh during the tourist season on our

[1:09:49] property, and we haven't excluded anyone

[1:09:53] from the use of it. We grant easements

[1:09:55] where necessary. For $1? Yes. So, when I

[1:09:59] come here, I'm uh reminded that the

[1:10:02] first time I came to Moab uh

[1:10:05] when I would have been 1 or 2 years old,

[1:10:08] 60% of the people living here

[1:10:11] uh had outdoor plumbing.

[1:10:14] Privies.

[1:10:15] And 60% of the people living here were

[1:10:18] heating their homes with coal or wood

[1:10:20] burning

[1:10:21] uh

[1:10:22] stoves, and there was an inversion layer

[1:10:26] where it was worse than Los Angeles at

[1:10:28] any time. People were actually couldn't

[1:10:30] breathe in this town in the

[1:10:32] dead of winter.

[1:10:33] And

[1:10:35] only the well-to-do

[1:10:38] uh had propane heat.

[1:10:40] And there were there were no sewer

[1:10:41] lines, and so it was quite a uh

[1:10:45] a different community, and there were at that time there were 19,000

[1:10:52] peach trees

[1:10:53] in this valley, 19,000.

[1:10:56] And peach farming

[1:10:58] produce was the main

[1:11:01] uh

[1:11:02] economic activity. And I guarantee you

[1:11:04] none of those people would have ever

[1:11:06] thought that there'd be a Slickrock bike

[1:11:08] trail or Hell's Revenge, or

[1:11:11] almost more uh hotel motel rooms than

[1:11:15] citizens. So, everything changes, and

[1:11:19] we'd like to

[1:11:21] uh request that you

[1:11:23] approve this so that

[1:11:24] the people who are using our property

[1:11:26] can do so uh so in a a way that uh makes

[1:11:30] it more profitable for all concerned.

[1:11:36] Ashley, did you have anything to add?

[1:11:39] Um

[1:11:40] No, I don't think so. Okay. I think we

[1:11:42] covered it.

[1:11:44] Um do we have any questions for the

[1:11:45] Steens?

[1:11:47] I have a couple.

[1:11:49] Go ahead. So, Mr. Steen, you've owned

[1:11:51] that property for some time.

[1:11:53] First, let me thank you for allowing us

[1:11:55] to put the big G up there on your

[1:11:56] property.

[1:11:57] Grand County High School alumni as

[1:11:59] others in this room are.

[1:12:01] And I really appreciate the big G.

[1:12:04] I mean, it's the only place we could get

[1:12:05] it put up.

[1:12:07] And we appreciate that. Cuz I go back

[1:12:09] whenever I can to

[1:12:10] honor the big G. Now, with that being

[1:12:12] said

[1:12:13] I don't remember seeing any corrals up

[1:12:15] there for cattle. So, what's your AUM on

[1:12:17] that 60 how many acres you got up there?

[1:12:21] Uh

[1:12:22] the only agricultural use in the entire

[1:12:25] history of that property is that uh

[1:12:28] people my father bought the land from,

[1:12:30] we bought about 3 square miles of land.

[1:12:33] That's why

[1:12:34] the subdivisions down in the flat land,

[1:12:36] and then

[1:12:37] the home property, and then this land up

[1:12:40] above was all part of a package deal,

[1:12:43] and they used to drive the cattle

[1:12:46] across that big broad bench all the way

[1:12:48] to the La Sal Mountains. And there

[1:12:50] there's never been cattle running up

[1:12:52] there. There's no water.

[1:12:54] So, it's not a

[1:12:55] really uh agricultural Last cattle drive

[1:12:57] I remember was Don Holyoke pushing his

[1:12:59] cows off the flat, bringing them down

[1:13:01] through the old springs, and then he'll

[1:13:03] ranch them out

[1:13:04] across the bridge and into the flat. So

[1:13:07] I appreciate that. So, my point would be

[1:13:09] by asking such a redundant question,

[1:13:11] which we all know there's no AUMs up

[1:13:13] there.

[1:13:14] So, range and grazing is obviously a

[1:13:16] fallback zone in this county.

[1:13:20] It has no meaning. It has no standing.

[1:13:23] It doesn't help or assist anyone.

[1:13:26] Except it's a hindrance, and should be

[1:13:29] looked at in our future planning as a

[1:13:31] non-use unless you actually have range

[1:13:33] and grazing.

[1:13:35] Then we could I'd be glad to zone it for

[1:13:37] that.

[1:13:38] So, I would like to be the first to say

[1:13:40] I'd love to approve this.

[1:13:42] I've I'd like to make a motion to

[1:13:44] approve it as written by staff

[1:13:47] as a permitted use in that property from

[1:13:49] here on unless you want to get it more

[1:13:52] dense at some point and do something

[1:13:53] else commercial on your land. I think

[1:13:55] it's a wonderful thing for what the

[1:13:57] Steen family has done over the years for

[1:13:59] this family of people in this community.

[1:14:03] And I look at your application in 24

[1:14:06] sign.

[1:14:07] And I'm still sitting here. This should

[1:14:09] never be before me. This should have

[1:14:11] been gone. Done. Approved.

[1:14:14] And that's how I feel about it. And this

[1:14:16] is how a lot of people feel. So, Randy,

[1:14:18] right now, let's just ask questions of

[1:14:20] the Steens. Okay. And we'll let them

[1:14:22] talk.

[1:14:23] We'll let them have a seat. We'll take

[1:14:25] public comment, and then if you want to

[1:14:27] make a motion or someone else wants to

[1:14:29] make a motion, we'll open the floor up

[1:14:30] for that. Thank you.

[1:14:32] Okay. My question is is relatively

[1:14:35] simple. Um

[1:14:36] have you did you consider resort special

[1:14:40] as a zone for this rather than resort

[1:14:43] commercial?

[1:14:44] We didn't beyond initial talking with

[1:14:47] the the people here in in the

[1:14:50] county government, and they

[1:14:52] were the ones who came up with the It

[1:14:54] was resort or commercial Yeah.

[1:14:57] We're trying to follow the future land

[1:14:58] use map because we got informed, "Hey,

[1:15:01] your your land should be zoned as this.

[1:15:04] All you need to do is apply." That's

[1:15:06] what we did. So, it it didn't occur to

[1:15:08] us that

[1:15:10] maybe we were zoning for something too

[1:15:12] high because it was in your document

[1:15:14] that that's what we should be zoned as.

[1:15:16] Mhm.

[1:15:17] Okay.

[1:15:18] I'll reserve my comments on that for

[1:15:19] later. Okay. Any other questions for the

[1:15:22] Steens, Mayor? Um why aren't you asking

[1:15:25] for annexation into the city? We've

[1:15:27] talked to the city. They don't want to

[1:15:28] annex to us.

[1:15:30] And also, we're not required to annex to

[1:15:32] the city.

[1:15:34] But you're in the annexation area is my

[1:15:35] question. Yeah, but that that was

[1:15:37] actually the number one Yeah, it should

[1:15:38] be number one.

[1:15:40] I I just wondered why. Yes. But we're

[1:15:43] not

[1:15:45] It's up to us if we want to annex. Oh, I

[1:15:47] agree. I agree.

[1:15:48] We're not using any city uh

[1:15:51] improvements. My guess is they consider

[1:15:53] the annexation area generally the city

[1:15:55] with fire that's the reason why that question is

[1:15:58] there. Could I take you to 2018? You

[1:16:00] spoke with the city. Yes, because

[1:16:02] but we don't have a letter that says we

[1:16:05] have And I didn't see anything in the

[1:16:07] letter. So, I just didn't. Yeah.

[1:16:09] That was going to be my question is,

[1:16:11] wouldn't you require a letter, Andrew,

[1:16:13] that says, you know, whether they

[1:16:16] want to absorb them or not from the city

[1:16:18] as a part of the application?

[1:16:20] Um

[1:16:27] That would be just a protection Yeah.

[1:16:30] by by the city council.

[1:16:33] Um

[1:16:34] So, the response back was that we

[1:16:36] believe that annexation to the city of

[1:16:38] Moab was not appropriate for this

[1:16:39] property.

[1:16:41] Um while the parcel is within Moab's

[1:16:44] city of Moab's annexation plan,

[1:16:46] annexation is neither required by

[1:16:48] ordinance or currently desired by the

[1:16:50] property owners. Annexation by the city

[1:16:52] of Moab results in higher tax property

[1:16:55] taxes that the current reflective needs

[1:16:57] cannot easily support. Furthermore, the

[1:16:59] city of Moab has told us that they're

[1:17:02] not interested in annexation. So,

[1:17:05] assuming you've you've had discussions

[1:17:07] with them, Randy, or at least assuming

[1:17:11] in past reviews submitted, our current

[1:17:14] requested use on the property to be

[1:17:15] commercial consistent with Grand

[1:17:17] County's jurisdiction in the existing

[1:17:19] review process.

[1:17:21] So, you have uh those discussions with

[1:17:24] the city. Thanks for the reason why I

[1:17:25] just wondered if you get a letter. It

[1:17:26] would just make it nicer. But especially

[1:17:29] if you're

[1:17:30] where you're going to cancel cuz it's in

[1:17:31] the old council. That's the public

[1:17:33] hearing city.

[1:17:35] All right. Any other questions for the

[1:17:37] Steens?

[1:17:38] I just had one comment, too. I use I've

[1:17:41] used Hell's Revenge

[1:17:43] and the Slickrock bike trail more times

[1:17:45] than I can count, honest to God.

[1:17:47] Probably I've been out there 100 times,

[1:17:49] probably. And I love it. And so, I got

[1:17:52] to thank you both for what you've done.

[1:17:53] I really appreciate it. Well, you should

[1:17:55] thank my dead father.

[1:17:58] He bought the property, and then he

[1:17:59] granted the original easements, and we

[1:18:02] straightened things out because

[1:18:04] uh his original easement was just a line

[1:18:07] on a map. And it was sort of there, and

[1:18:10] then when we finally found out where it

[1:18:13] actually was, which we had to find out

[1:18:14] so that the zipline could be

[1:18:16] constructed, it turned out that the

[1:18:20] uh

[1:18:21] bike trail was not on the easement. It

[1:18:23] was hundreds of feet away and had been

[1:18:25] established, so we adjusted that, and

[1:18:28] it's now they have a a good easement up

[1:18:30] there, and it's

[1:18:32] of record. Nothing's going to Nothing

[1:18:34] that anybody's doing is going to disturb

[1:18:36] that easement. And I there's another

[1:18:38] thing I I'd point out, and that is

[1:18:40] that the employees

[1:18:42] at the zipline are very well paid, and

[1:18:46] they they get considerable amount in

[1:18:48] tips. And right now, there are about 18

[1:18:51] people who are working there.

[1:18:53] If this goes through, they might have 30

[1:18:56] uh

[1:18:56] really well-paid residents and employees

[1:18:59] here in in Moab. So, very positive

[1:19:02] economic impact. Yes.

[1:19:05] I don't know that they'll any of them be

[1:19:06] able to afford a home, but

[1:19:09] possibly possibly that will become true.

[1:19:11] But they they're all enthusiastic.

[1:19:13] They're all very young, fit people, and

[1:19:16] I'm always amazed how

[1:19:18] uh conscientious and interested in it

[1:19:21] they are.

[1:19:22] Mhm.

[1:19:24] I just want to thank you guys for coming

[1:19:26] back because I was here when you guys

[1:19:28] presented last time and I know that was

[1:19:31] a frustrating discussion to walk away

[1:19:33] from.

[1:19:34] Um

[1:19:35] and this again goes with this land use

[1:19:37] code update. And I I appreciate you guys

[1:19:40] being patient, but I also appreciate you

[1:19:42] being persistent in coming back because

[1:19:45] these are these are the things that we

[1:19:46] need to hash out and and figure out so

[1:19:49] we can keep moving forward for

[1:19:50] everyone's sake, for the employees'

[1:19:52] sake, for the business' sake, for

[1:19:54] tourism. It all

[1:19:57] plays an equal role here.

[1:19:59] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:20:02] All right, if no other questions for the

[1:20:03] Stevens, you folks can have a seat in

[1:20:06] the seating area there and we'll

[1:20:09] begin our deliberations.

[1:20:11] So, Andrew's already read through the

[1:20:15] um

[1:20:16] administrative summary and we'll at this

[1:20:19] point

[1:20:20] entertain

[1:20:22] a motion and Randy, I think you already

[1:20:24] had your hand up for that. I did. I'd

[1:20:26] like to make the motion as read on

[1:20:28] record by Andrew for the approval of the

[1:20:31] zoning tonight.

[1:20:32] And that's recommending it to Recommend

[1:20:34] it to the county commission. Yeah, I

[1:20:36] don't get to get to this. I'll let the

[1:20:38] county

[1:20:39] All right, do we have a second?

[1:20:41] I will second. Megan seconds it. Okay,

[1:20:43] we'll move on to discussion.

[1:20:45] >> You should

[1:20:47] I think maybe people that want to be

[1:20:49] heard Yeah,

[1:20:50] they have to be here to be heard. And we

[1:20:52] have nobody online. We've been watching

[1:20:54] for that. Do we have anybody else in the

[1:20:57] room who wants to speak public comments

[1:21:01] about the zoning request?

[1:21:06] Seeing none, we'll go on to discussion.

[1:21:11] Well,

[1:21:13] we have we have two people. I'll start

[1:21:14] with Trace. You were quick with your

[1:21:16] hand.

[1:21:16] >> Yeah, that's okay. And they're more

[1:21:18] questions for Andrew. So, Andrew, um you

[1:21:21] know, most of the information as far as

[1:21:23] their application is from 2024.

[1:21:27] So,

[1:21:29] I'm just wondering and my understanding

[1:21:31] is

[1:21:32] um

[1:21:33] you know,

[1:21:34] that really the application should be

[1:21:36] updated because the verbage is a

[1:21:39] reasonable amount of time and I think

[1:21:42] you know, where

[1:21:44] this would not be considered a

[1:21:45] reasonable amount of time. I mean, my

[1:21:46] understanding is things like, you know,

[1:21:48] the title report has to be within 3

[1:21:50] months of the application. The well

[1:21:52] service old. My understanding with the

[1:21:55] letter from the city is that is state

[1:21:57] law and I could be wrong about that. So,

[1:22:00] I do think the application is is expired

[1:22:04] and or needs to be updated and is

[1:22:06] incomplete in a couple areas. So, I

[1:22:08] guess I would like just your

[1:22:09] information.

[1:22:10] >> Yeah, yeah. So, this came April 14th of

[1:22:13] 2025

[1:22:15] to the planning commission.

[1:22:17] And so

[1:22:17] >> I know that.

[1:22:18] It did contain that information from

[1:22:22] um

[1:22:24] previous book. This

[1:22:26] is acting on that that was April 14th of

[1:22:29] 2025 and the applicant um sent a letter

[1:22:33] responding to those in July 22nd of

[1:22:36] 2025.

[1:22:37] Um and again, they've been very patient

[1:22:40] as we've been

[1:22:42] honing through a whole bunch of

[1:22:43] applications and

[1:22:45] other things that are due, but

[1:22:48] um

[1:22:51] Sorry, let me adjust to the

[1:22:53] title report. Okay, so we did get from

[1:22:56] the TRT. So, this went out to the TRT

[1:23:00] uh probably about a month ago.

[1:23:03] Um there were some back taxes that were

[1:23:04] due that they paid.

[1:23:07] Um

[1:23:10] I'm trying to think if there are any

[1:23:11] other significant TRT recommendations.

[1:23:15] Uh I don't believe so other than the

[1:23:17] similar back taxes being paid to the

[1:23:20] county.

[1:23:21] Yes, I think you bring up some good

[1:23:23] points and if there are some other legal

[1:23:25] requirements, I would suggest that the

[1:23:27] applicants get those taken care of

[1:23:28] before it goes to county commission.

[1:23:33] I have a question. What does it matter

[1:23:35] that this application started in July our new

[1:23:39] application started July 2025

[1:23:43] and it's delayed not on our part. So,

[1:23:46] now we have to go back and do all of

[1:23:48] that paperwork again because we've been

[1:23:50] on delay. Um yeah, so no, I don't think

[1:23:52] so cuz you answered those questions.

[1:23:54] Um but we may want to do

[1:23:58] here our letter just that agency should

[1:24:00] lawyers.

[1:24:02] And state and county code also requires

[1:24:04] an updated um

[1:24:06] title report within 3 months of the

[1:24:09] Okay. Yeah, so that'll be fine. So, in

[1:24:11] that case, once uh it would

[1:24:14] go ahead and get those updated before

[1:24:16] the county commission. So, it would be

[1:24:18] the title report and a letter from the

[1:24:20] uh city of Moab letter.

[1:24:24] All right.

[1:24:25] Just to be fair to the applicant, those

[1:24:27] are the only two documents they would

[1:24:30] need to provide to have a complete and

[1:24:33] updated application to present to the

[1:24:35] county commission?

[1:24:39] That's my opinion.

[1:24:42] Um

[1:24:44] Andrew, could you work with the

[1:24:45] applicant offline to address anything

[1:24:48] else on that?

[1:24:48] >> And we'll just make sure that's all

[1:24:49] taken care of prior to going to the

[1:24:52] county commission. I think just a point

[1:24:53] of clarification administrative

[1:24:55] issues.

[1:24:57] And Utah letter of non-interest

[1:24:59] is not a state mandate

[1:25:02] unless set by local requirement. So,

[1:25:05] unless the county has a code that says that we require a

[1:25:10] letter of non-interest, it is not a

[1:25:13] requirement. And so, Andrew, could you

[1:25:15] work with the legal and help the

[1:25:17] applicant before this comes to You can

[1:25:19] do that.

[1:25:20] All right, we're going to go around the

[1:25:22] room and Sarah, since you're uh

[1:25:26] in uh virtually today,

[1:25:29] um we're going to go around the room,

[1:25:31] but whenever you raise your hand, we'll

[1:25:32] let you interject, okay? So, we'll start

[1:25:35] with Elbie and we'll just make our way

[1:25:36] around. Elbie?

[1:25:38] But I I I like this application kind of

[1:25:41] the way it's written and what going to

[1:25:44] be done. Here's my major concern. It's

[1:25:47] the reason I kind of asked the question

[1:25:48] about uh whether you had considered

[1:25:51] resort special versus

[1:25:54] uh resort commercial. Number one, if we take and and you got we have to be

[1:25:59] careful with with the future land use

[1:26:02] map

[1:26:03] uh as written and we say, well, it's got

[1:26:06] to be tourist or some recreational

[1:26:08] thing, it says one of two things,

[1:26:11] recreational commercial or recreational

[1:26:14] resort special. Here's my concern.

[1:26:17] Um

[1:26:18] we zone the property.

[1:26:20] That just means you sell it, has the same zone uh that uh

[1:26:27] we we end up we end up giving the county

[1:26:30] commission ends up giving it. Resort

[1:26:33] commercial says

[1:26:35] five units per acre if I'm not mistaken.

[1:26:39] Uh I believe that is right under and you

[1:26:42] can look in the

[1:26:44] land use section.

[1:26:46] And uh and resort special is point two

[1:26:50] uh per acre, meaning that you could have

[1:26:53] one unit per five acre like you could

[1:26:55] with range and grazing.

[1:26:57] So, my concern is if we really

[1:27:01] zone this at five units per acre,

[1:27:06] then

[1:27:07] we are in the we're faced with this

[1:27:09] thing is, well, you could have um

[1:27:13] a lion's back, a kind of resort. Not not

[1:27:16] you, but somebody might find a place to

[1:27:19] put it there and get water to it and

[1:27:21] it's very valuable property because

[1:27:23] scenic. So, that's going to be actually

[1:27:27] my my greatest concern. I would feel

[1:27:29] much better. And of course, I'm

[1:27:31] not the land use expert, but I think you

[1:27:34] could do almost everything you've

[1:27:36] claimed, you know, said you wanted to do

[1:27:38] uh with the resort special uh thing. I'm

[1:27:42] going to go now just look at my notes to

[1:27:44] see

[1:27:45] if there is anything else

[1:27:49] um

[1:27:52] and I think

[1:27:54] really that is

[1:27:57] my major concern. Other people may have

[1:27:59] concerns with roads and stuff. I don't

[1:28:02] know about that stuff about what roads

[1:28:04] need to to serve it, but I

[1:28:07] if I had that if if other things were in

[1:28:10] order and it was resort special, so I

[1:28:12] didn't have to worry about large

[1:28:14] developments that uh we can't control

[1:28:18] that would that would make me happier.

[1:28:22] Okay, thanks, Elbie.

[1:28:23] Randy, we'll go to you next. I'll go

[1:28:26] ahead and pass.

[1:28:27] Randy? I'm this way. Okay, thank you.

[1:28:31] Um is that the only difference is the

[1:28:33] actual units per acre? Well, there are

[1:28:36] other differences in that and it's so

[1:28:38] I don't know because when I read

[1:28:40] through, I thought probably everything

[1:28:42] would be okay in their proposal, but you

[1:28:45] got to be careful, Randy, cuz I can't

[1:28:47] I'm not I'm not the real expert there,

[1:28:50] but uh I thought it looked pretty good.

[1:28:53] It's I'm a little bit not sure about

[1:28:56] there there was something about, well,

[1:28:57] you might want to have a place where

[1:28:59] corporations could have retreats. I'm

[1:29:02] not quite sure what that would uh look

[1:29:04] like involved in terms of

[1:29:06] buildings of though and Mary knows this

[1:29:09] stuff where you have to you do a PUD on

[1:29:12] this uh you know, so that you could have

[1:29:14] some a big and building than I you might

[1:29:18] usually have. That just basically said,

[1:29:20] "Well, we're going to leave these acres

[1:29:21] free and we're going to do some

[1:29:22] concentration here."

[1:29:25] Mary, correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:29:27] >> [laughter]

[1:29:27] >> All All other outdoor recreation use is

[1:29:31] um either a permitted or conditional use

[1:29:34] depending uh

[1:29:35] um

[1:29:36] the park's special.

[1:29:38] Table 3.1 Again, conditional use comes

[1:29:41] up. Let me finish what I was talking

[1:29:42] about. Thank you for clarifying what your understanding is of.

[1:29:47] My understanding is too that that's what

[1:29:49] our county told them to apply for.

[1:29:51] Ergo, that's what I want to say, "Yeah,

[1:29:55] go for it."

[1:29:56] I know that rock and it take a lot of

[1:29:58] blasting. It take a lot of work to build a subdivision up

[1:30:02] there, five units per acre.

[1:30:05] And I'm all for it if you want to do it.

[1:30:06] But it's a rough rock, but and you can

[1:30:09] drill them out of the sandstone in

[1:30:10] between the cables that you're going up

[1:30:12] there. I don't know.

[1:30:14] I'm too scared to drive right across

[1:30:15] that line, so I don't do that stuff.

[1:30:18] I need you for flying and not jumping

[1:30:20] out.

[1:30:21] In that setting, again, it's it's their

[1:30:24] risk that they take. If they get this

[1:30:26] zone and up where they are, they're out

[1:30:28] of the way, you're not going to see it.

[1:30:30] The shelves up there are huge. You could

[1:30:31] build a lot of stuff and never see it.

[1:30:34] And to get to the big G, I promise.

[1:30:37] Uh back in the day, now it's a little

[1:30:39] heck of a trail these days, but back

[1:30:41] then it was a little it was tough.

[1:30:43] And I And it's changing. And And I think

[1:30:46] that rather than hold these folks up

[1:30:49] because of our inability to really

[1:30:50] understand what code that our staff

[1:30:52] invited them to do, I think we move

[1:30:55] forward where they are in good faith.

[1:30:57] They have good faith. They've waited.

[1:30:59] They've been patient. And I think it's

[1:31:00] time for the county to start recognizing

[1:31:03] that's what we do. We act on things. We

[1:31:05] get things done for them and we move

[1:31:07] forward. We tell them yes or we tell

[1:31:09] them no. The conditional use is not an

[1:31:11] option. It's either in or it's out in my

[1:31:14] opinion.

[1:31:15] And

[1:31:16] I really like this plan. I think it's

[1:31:18] great. It's a long time coming. I think

[1:31:20] it's smart. It helps what we already

[1:31:22] started in the early '90s. This is part

[1:31:24] of what we are digging. This is our ore.

[1:31:28] And we call it tourism. And it's a great

[1:31:30] thing and they do a really nice job.

[1:31:32] I've been there a couple times. Haven't

[1:31:33] rode the cable. I'm going to do that.

[1:31:35] I'm I'm close. Now I'm good. But it's really good for our town. They run

[1:31:40] a class act. I know a couple of the guys

[1:31:42] that work there and the people that And they're happy.

[1:31:46] And that's a good thing. And no, they

[1:31:47] probably don't make enough to afford a

[1:31:48] house on that income. And so, we got to

[1:31:51] go to work and make sure we understand

[1:31:53] all our zones so that we can make that a

[1:31:55] possibility. Open those doors.

[1:31:58] Thank you for your time and I'd like to

[1:32:00] make that motion that we do that. Good.

[1:32:03] And you already made a motion. We

[1:32:04] already Well, I'll re-second myself.

[1:32:08] We're in the discussion now.

[1:32:10] All right, we're going around the room

[1:32:11] here. Who is next? Yeah, I remember this

[1:32:13] came up before and it was such a big

[1:32:16] piece of property to like say

[1:32:18] something's commercial. I mean, you're

[1:32:20] like, "Oh, this could like change the

[1:32:22] whole development of the the valley."

[1:32:25] That being said, I you know, I I've

[1:32:28] gone up there a few times and I was I've

[1:32:30] thought about this and you know, they're

[1:32:33] offering unique tourism

[1:32:36] rather than kind of like And it's a

[1:32:38] property that's surrounded by

[1:32:40] commercial.

[1:32:42] And it doesn't have any other

[1:32:45] uh like residential zones. So, you know,

[1:32:48] one of our criteria is like looking at

[1:32:50] the surrounding zoning.

[1:32:52] And

[1:32:53] uh I I just And I know we're not

[1:32:56] supposed to base anything off plans and

[1:32:59] whatnot and what what the full use could

[1:33:02] be used for, but I I've just really kind

[1:33:05] of been like, you know, we offer unique

[1:33:07] things and like by not allowing

[1:33:11] that, it's kind of like, ooh,

[1:33:13] we we've uh

[1:33:17] I think we could offer unique

[1:33:18] experiences in Moab and it's like a

[1:33:20] unique piece of property that could

[1:33:22] really facilitate that. I've changed my

[1:33:24] mind about that, you know, and it's like

[1:33:26] it's in a WPSO, right?

[1:33:29] On that watershed protection area.

[1:33:31] And so, like that in itself will um make

[1:33:35] sure like that is a major obstacle for

[1:33:37] development on it and and uh

[1:33:42] so

[1:33:43] you know, like

[1:33:45] Anyways, I've I've really been in

[1:33:47] support of this because of that.

[1:33:49] Thank

[1:33:50] Thanks, Eric. All right. Um

[1:33:53] I also think this sounds like a good

[1:33:55] idea. Um and I haven't seen the

[1:33:58] perspective map.

[1:33:59] I know what church they gave to me. They

[1:34:01] gave to us.

[1:34:02] And my kids go to their school.

[1:34:04] Um

[1:34:06] But I have a problem with the process.

[1:34:08] This

[1:34:09] RC zone

[1:34:12] was written specifically and it's in our

[1:34:14] land use code that is law

[1:34:17] that says that the resort commercial

[1:34:18] district was intended to promote site

[1:34:20] design concepts in the gateway plan. The

[1:34:23] gateway plan for the county was from the

[1:34:27] river north.

[1:34:29] The city has the same zone

[1:34:32] from the river

[1:34:35] south. So, the zone that they want is

[1:34:38] the is the zone they could get in the

[1:34:39] city.

[1:34:41] Um also,

[1:34:44] I have such a hard time with the fact

[1:34:48] that we are using our general plan

[1:34:52] as

[1:34:53] code

[1:34:54] when it is only a guideline.

[1:34:58] Um

[1:34:59] And if I'm going to use it as code,

[1:35:02] I'm going to use it as a guideline code.

[1:35:04] And page 27 of

[1:35:07] the map that shows that

[1:35:10] specifically says, cuz that's also it

[1:35:12] shows the green area

[1:35:15] that is located in the northwest

[1:35:18] northeast of Moab

[1:35:20] and it is in an area called the do not

[1:35:23] harm, which means these areas should

[1:35:25] generally maintain the densities that

[1:35:28] exist at the present.

[1:35:30] And that's um

[1:35:32] in

[1:35:33] the code we adopted. Here's the code we

[1:35:35] adopted.

[1:35:36] And also,

[1:35:38] it says

[1:35:40] our guideline for the future land use

[1:35:42] map for Spanish Valley that shows this

[1:35:44] area in brown.

[1:35:46] And that is a resort and tourist

[1:35:47] recreation. It's not a zone. It's a it

[1:35:51] is a place type focusing on the look and

[1:35:55] feel of places for us to decide on.

[1:35:57] There is no code in the land use code

[1:36:00] that says we can use it. There is no

[1:36:03] code. And I know we go to the next page

[1:36:05] where it says

[1:36:07] um

[1:36:08] the section where

[1:36:09] that's where we use that, but it's still

[1:36:12] just a guideline. It's saying

[1:36:14] that our um

[1:36:17] our G should stay RG.

[1:36:19] It doesn't say we should change it. It

[1:36:20] says right here in that little

[1:36:22] place type.

[1:36:23] >> RG doesn't make any sense. Well, we're

[1:36:25] not talking about that, Randy. Well, we

[1:36:27] are talking about that, Mary. Um G the resort commercial

[1:36:34] goes to resort tourist recreation. We

[1:36:36] don't have that title. We don't have a

[1:36:38] title of resort and tourist recreation.

[1:36:40] So, we're not even allowing them to

[1:36:43] put this in a zone that we have.

[1:36:46] >> Well, see three cents. And

[1:36:48] >> That's my turn for the Um

[1:36:53] And then, of course, on the annexation

[1:36:55] area, there was one other section that

[1:36:57] If you go to also say little book that

[1:37:00] you're reading that we call using as a

[1:37:02] land use code and it is not.

[1:37:05] Well, the resort and tourist recreation

[1:37:08] is sports arenas, venues, concerts,

[1:37:11] shows, resorts, RV parks, outdoor

[1:37:13] outfitters, and recreational service

[1:37:15] facilities. Secondary uses are those

[1:37:18] that support the primary uses and do not

[1:37:20] distract from the quality of the place

[1:37:22] of services, including RVs. And the

[1:37:24] density is varies.

[1:37:28] So, if we're using this as a land use

[1:37:30] code,

[1:37:32] it's not. There's no This is not adopted

[1:37:35] land use code.

[1:37:35] >> is this what, Mary? Yeah, it's something

[1:37:37] adopted. Then what is using it if

[1:37:40] It's a general plan. I'm not using the

[1:37:41] land use code. The land use It's a

[1:37:44] general plan association. If we're using

[1:37:45] that as the code, we're not using it as

[1:37:47] a code. It is a general plan and

[1:37:50] you can argue that they have zoning, you

[1:37:53] have to have a general plan in place.

[1:37:54] This is still in place.

[1:37:56] >> But this doesn't This doesn't fit.

[1:37:58] It

[1:37:59] fits to me.

[1:38:00] I'm saying it doesn't. I don't agree.

[1:38:02] And I'm saying I'm saying it doesn't.

[1:38:03] And it specifically says that the RC RG

[1:38:07] whatever that zone district they're

[1:38:09] asking for is within that um RC RC zone

[1:38:13] district is for

[1:38:15] the gateway plan. This isn't part of the

[1:38:16] gateway plan. The gateway plan in the

[1:38:18] city is a gateway plan. And they have

[1:38:20] when I looked up in the city, it's still

[1:38:22] there. I looked at the city's

[1:38:24] um general plan, it's all the same.

[1:38:27] And there also [clears throat] is no

[1:38:29] um

[1:38:31] public facilities which have been

[1:38:33] brought up. There's no water and sewer.

[1:38:35] up there. I

[1:38:36] mean, yes, you can build that way.

[1:38:39] But to put a commercial zone

[1:38:43] on Class D roads is also problematic

[1:38:46] because you can't you know, it's Class D

[1:38:49] road, we're asking for it to be

[1:38:50] commercial area.

[1:38:52] I'm really concerned about both things.

[1:38:54] And I'm

[1:38:55] After that little spiel, I will also say

[1:38:57] when we change the code

[1:38:59] >> [laughter]

[1:39:00] >> something to make it work.

[1:39:02] And I know that

[1:39:03] >> No, we can't because that is in the

[1:39:05] code. Fine. And it will actually keep

[1:39:06] working. And it would work for what they

[1:39:09] want to do. What a beautiful plan you

[1:39:10] have. It is a beautiful plan. But we

[1:39:13] need, laws That was that older.

[1:39:17] I feel as over.

[1:39:18] Thank you, Mary.

[1:39:21] We have a couple people that we haven't

[1:39:22] had a chance or given a chance yet,

[1:39:24] Sarah and Megan. Do you want It's your

[1:39:28] turn. Okay.

[1:39:30] So, again, it's I got to say I

[1:39:33] appreciate what this family has done

[1:39:35] over all of the years. That is a

[1:39:37] incredible

[1:39:39] It's an incredible thing what they have

[1:39:41] given this community.

[1:39:43] And I think the plans that they gave us

[1:39:45] are

[1:39:46] basically what we asked them to do.

[1:39:49] Um

[1:39:50] Mary, I understand that uh you know,

[1:39:53] your points about

[1:39:55] how poorly the RC matches

[1:39:58] with

[1:39:59] the land use code, and I agree with you. It's poor.

[1:40:03] I do also

[1:40:05] you know, I also

[1:40:08] My other point is that they have done

[1:40:10] what we've asked them to do.

[1:40:12] They've sat on it a long time, and you

[1:40:15] know, I'm in favor of moving ahead with

[1:40:17] it.

[1:40:18] So.

[1:40:19] We have two more now. Megan Megan. I I

[1:40:23] agree, and I I totally get Mary's

[1:40:25] frustration with the land use code

[1:40:26] because

[1:40:27] I want to follow these processes

[1:40:29] correctly, and our land use code doesn't

[1:40:31] allow us to, but I think that this is a

[1:40:33] perfect example of what happens when we

[1:40:36] keep waiting for the land use code to be

[1:40:38] updated because they've come back,

[1:40:40] they've done that we've asked them to.

[1:40:43] Andrew, I don't even want to know how

[1:40:44] many applications are still sitting in

[1:40:46] planning and zoning because we haven't

[1:40:48] been able to move forward, and it

[1:40:50] and that also makes me question the more

[1:40:53] applications that come to this table,

[1:40:55] how outdated they're going to be because

[1:40:57] we've been backed up with admin issues,

[1:41:00] or not having a planning and zoning

[1:41:02] admin, or all of these other things that

[1:41:05] come up. These guys have been very

[1:41:07] patient with us, and when they were at

[1:41:08] the table 8 months ago, we went through

[1:41:11] everything that we needed from them. I

[1:41:14] voted it down because I was concerned

[1:41:16] about the city annexing, and I think

[1:41:18] that's a valid concern, but they

[1:41:19] addressed that in line number one.

[1:41:22] They've done everything we've asked them

[1:41:23] to, and if resort commercial was what

[1:41:26] the county had asked them to change

[1:41:27] their zoning to, and they followed

[1:41:29] through and complied with it,

[1:41:31] I don't think that's for us to tell them

[1:41:33] that that's not the proper zone now when

[1:41:36] they've gone through all of the

[1:41:37] channels, and we've gone back and forth

[1:41:39] for over a year now.

[1:41:41] And this is a very reputable business in

[1:41:44] town. It is a very unique business in

[1:41:46] town, like Aaron said. If this is

[1:41:48] something that helps better that

[1:41:50] business and better that experience, we

[1:41:53] shouldn't be the ones holding them back

[1:41:55] when they clearly are making the efforts

[1:41:57] to comply and do what we're asking them

[1:41:59] to do for something that really isn't

[1:42:02] going to have an impact on anything

[1:42:03] other than providing a better service

[1:42:05] overall.

[1:42:09] Sir.

[1:42:11] Okay. Um I see everything that Mary was saying

[1:42:16] from the the do no harm zone on one page

[1:42:20] 27, and then on 35,

[1:42:23] the map of the place types.

[1:42:26] My feeling is if the Grand County

[1:42:28] Commission, first of all, has passed

[1:42:31] this land use chapter,

[1:42:34] I mean, it is our job to recommend if

[1:42:37] something falls into the vision that

[1:42:40] they for the county. If it does, I think

[1:42:44] we recommend it. If it doesn't, I think

[1:42:47] we don't recommend it.

[1:42:48] Um

[1:42:50] and then the other thing I think about

[1:42:53] this after reading through the whole

[1:42:54] packet is um

[1:42:57] so many times I've watched developers

[1:42:59] come to the County Commission and say,

[1:43:01] "Hey, I want to build this high-density

[1:43:03] project." And the county says, "Okay,

[1:43:07] what will you give us? We want a deed We

[1:43:10] want deed restrictions on the

[1:43:12] properties. We want workforce housing.

[1:43:14] We want things like that."

[1:43:16] And I feel like this is an applicant

[1:43:18] that is coming to us and saying,

[1:43:20] "Hey, let us tell you what we've already

[1:43:23] done for the county."

[1:43:26] So, I I to me, I just I think this

[1:43:29] county has a little bit of a history of

[1:43:31] trying to deal with developers and say,

[1:43:33] "What's in it for us?"

[1:43:35] And I feel like this applicant has

[1:43:37] already shown, "Hey,

[1:43:39] this is what's already been in it for

[1:43:41] you for the last 50 years."

[1:43:44] So, that's just it. That's I guess

[1:43:46] that's kind of a side thought, but you

[1:43:48] know, just my guiding principle is we

[1:43:51] just need to get out of people's way.

[1:43:54] And if the County Commission thinks this

[1:43:57] is the direction our county should go,

[1:44:01] then I think we approve that.

[1:44:08] Well, I I will do

[1:44:09] I I I will simply

[1:44:11] come back to what I said originally. I

[1:44:14] do worry

[1:44:16] about making

[1:44:19] this this land use code change that

[1:44:22] allows 25 times the rate the density

[1:44:26] that you currently have on the property

[1:44:28] in range and grazing. And if there

[1:44:31] really is, you know, you know, I I never

[1:44:34] think there's no danger that somebody

[1:44:36] else will get the land, you know,

[1:44:39] couple people die, heaven forbid, and

[1:44:41] somebody else gets the land.

[1:44:44] And Randy, I'd say, "Yeah, if you could

[1:44:46] blow down some of that Navajo sandstone

[1:44:48] and put up 50 houses, nobody's going to

[1:44:51] do it." That may be the case, but if

[1:44:53] somebody as you say, they want to do it,

[1:44:55] they can go ahead and do it. I would

[1:44:57] love to see this

[1:44:59] as resort special. I think they could do

[1:45:02] what they want to have on it, and it

[1:45:05] would protect that land. I think there's

[1:45:07] a there's a vision for that land that

[1:45:10] sand flax sand flax is important. The

[1:45:13] sandstone is important. You really

[1:45:15] wouldn't want any kind of big

[1:45:17] development where somebody might find

[1:45:19] out where to put it. So, I will

[1:45:22] vote against this proposal. I think it

[1:45:25] would be easy to change. You could

[1:45:27] >> [clears throat]

[1:45:27] >> Basically, if you could do the same

[1:45:30] things under this, you could come back

[1:45:32] and say, "Well, I'm resort special."

[1:45:34] I don't think it would be that much

[1:45:36] problem, but that's just where I sit.

[1:45:39] Well,

[1:45:41] we have resort special would be a

[1:45:42] problem. So, looking under resort

[1:45:44] special right here, it says it's

[1:45:46] codified under section 4.8. As you look

[1:45:49] under section 4.8, and you look at the

[1:45:51] applic- applicability

[1:45:53] right there, it says a real property

[1:45:55] leased to a private person is done in

[1:45:57] 10.2. Privately owned included in the

[1:45:59] following 7-mile area map. So, resort

[1:46:03] special was actually specifically for

[1:46:05] the Arches National Park U shed. So, not

[1:46:08] only would you have to do that, but you

[1:46:09] would also have to change

[1:46:12] this right here. Look at that.

[1:46:14] I I That wasn't my reading of it when I

[1:46:17] read earlier, but as Mary said, "Oh,

[1:46:20] resort commercial is for the gateway."

[1:46:23] This is not part of the gateway.

[1:46:26] So, I I mean, if we're going to hold up

[1:46:28] this on a technicality,

[1:46:31] uh

[1:46:31] I don't think that's the way I read it.

[1:46:34] I think it says refer to that section,

[1:46:37] uh but

[1:46:39] anyway. So, we do have a motion on the floor. We do.

[1:46:42] If there are legal issues, it's going to

[1:46:45] go through legal review, and in that

[1:46:47] case, if there are, they'll come back.

[1:46:49] Okay.

[1:46:51] All right.

[1:46:52] Any other questions or comments?

[1:46:55] All right.

[1:46:56] Then seeing none, we'll go to a vote.

[1:46:59] All of those in favor of the motion that

[1:47:02] Randy made.

[1:47:05] And there are 1 2 3 4 5. All of those

[1:47:09] opposed.

[1:47:10] 1 2.

[1:47:12] Motion passes. And my opposition is

[1:47:15] specifically to the fact that we do not

[1:47:17] The guideline even in the land use code

[1:47:19] room I mean, the general planning and

[1:47:21] zoning says we cannot do this.

[1:47:23] And Cuz I think you made a really good

[1:47:25] point. Good.

[1:47:26] And I And I would say my opposition is

[1:47:29] simply that that density

[1:47:31] >> density. The potential density over such

[1:47:33] a vast sort of area near

[1:47:37] So, I think that the next step could be

[1:47:39] the team family is going to be getting

[1:47:41] together with Andrew and

[1:47:42] prepare for the County Commission. And

[1:47:45] Andrew, if you could have legal review

[1:47:47] to ensure that this actually is something the commission could

[1:47:51] approve.

[1:47:53] Thank you. Sounds good.

[1:47:55] Okay.

[1:47:57] Um we'll go back to the meeting agenda.

[1:48:04] Well, if I can find where we're at here.

[1:48:11] We were in

[1:48:13] with the legal organization. Yep. So,

[1:48:16] then

[1:48:17] um

[1:48:19] we have

[1:48:20] the We went to discussion item number

[1:48:23] three, which was discussion on

[1:48:24] multi-family residential and

[1:48:26] high-density housing,

[1:48:28] and we worked on that before the 6:00

[1:48:30] o'clock break.

[1:48:32] And Andrew, um I think you've done a

[1:48:34] nice job with summarizing some of the

[1:48:36] issues around MFR.

[1:48:39] Um do you have more that you want to

[1:48:41] bring up for discussion on this issue

[1:48:42] tonight? Um no. Basically, just the

[1:48:45] email of the high-density housing

[1:48:46] overlay, so we've got that as well.

[1:48:48] We've got some properties. You You have

[1:48:50] eligible properties, and then you have

[1:48:52] applied. So, if you go to the

[1:48:55] um county's zoning map, you're going to

[1:48:58] click on the layers, and you'll have

[1:49:02] eligible properties, and then you have

[1:49:03] another layer that they applied. So,

[1:49:06] well, there may be a whole universe of

[1:49:09] properties that are eligible, only a few

[1:49:13] have actually

[1:49:14] it's actually been applied to.

[1:49:17] Um and so

[1:49:20] I think that's

[1:49:21] and I kind of I gave those maps out

[1:49:23] before and we got these, etc. And it's

[1:49:27] kind of I think we all need to know what

[1:49:30] we're looking at to talk about it.

[1:49:33] I have a question which is do you know

[1:49:36] when are they going to

[1:49:37] the housing authority going to have

[1:49:40] something ready for us about how much

[1:49:42] housing they think they need this

[1:49:43] affordable housing of Do Do you have any

[1:49:45] idea?

[1:49:47] They keep getting close, I hear, because

[1:49:50] Colorado Crossing made a big impact.

[1:49:55] It's interesting.

[1:49:56] Um

[1:49:58] Based on my business and real estate's

[1:50:00] what my business is in.

[1:50:02] Um our median price is still about 50.

[1:50:06] We still have affordable housing

[1:50:08] everywhere there is no place that's No

[1:50:12] place that's nobody and it is boiling

[1:50:15] down to

[1:50:16] whether or not local boards

[1:50:19] local towns, local counties

[1:50:21] are willing to bite the bullet

[1:50:23] take NIMBYism and put it where it

[1:50:25] belongs in the

[1:50:27] I don't know where there's some number

[1:50:28] of factors including There's a lot of

[1:50:30] factors involved and some of them I

[1:50:32] agree, there's a lot, but we We're not

[1:50:34] going to solve those here. We as

[1:50:36] counties We We as a planning commissions

[1:50:38] But Randy, I would make a difference

[1:50:40] here and that and Obi maybe the same.

[1:50:42] We've had the housing task force come in

[1:50:44] here before and make a presentation and

[1:50:47] if we would like to have an update on

[1:50:49] that, I'd say let's work with Andrew.

[1:50:51] That would work. Do you know the answer

[1:50:54] to I thought they were publishing that.

[1:50:56] I think it's on the housing task force.

[1:50:59] Is it Is it publicly been published?

[1:51:01] I'm personally I'm in favor of them

[1:51:03] coming in and doing a presentation. I

[1:51:06] think that's okay. I want to answer

[1:51:07] that.

[1:51:07] I have a couple of questions and I know

[1:51:09] all about that. I'd love to hear from

[1:51:10] them for sure.

[1:51:12] I'd love that. Go ahead and share it

[1:51:14] again. Thank you. So, yeah.

[1:51:17] I think I'd like to just take us and

[1:51:18] kind of back up a little bit to start

[1:51:20] with it. So, this is in response to

[1:51:23] yeah, the pipeline study. We did put

[1:51:25] that forward to the housing task task

[1:51:28] force and Grand County did provide

[1:51:31] funding for them to get that put

[1:51:32] together and we are working actually as

[1:51:35] the county as well to put together a

[1:51:36] dashboard which has so far been

[1:51:39] completed as far as the city data goes

[1:51:42] and we're now building up the county

[1:51:43] data as well. So, we are actually pretty

[1:51:45] close to that. Having looked at that

[1:51:49] our number one need is still Let's all

[1:51:52] take a guess. High density.

[1:51:54] housing. Yes. Right? Low

[1:51:56] income housing is still our number one

[1:51:59] need in this county. Um and the goals

[1:52:02] that we set in the 2023

[1:52:05] housing plan are they were they were good plans.

[1:52:11] And so, if we're going to come come

[1:52:13] anywhere near meeting those needs, we

[1:52:16] are going to have to keep having the

[1:52:18] availability for projects to provide

[1:52:21] that low income housing.

[1:52:24] As we've looked into this and we started

[1:52:26] with the MFR 45 and have moved that, you

[1:52:28] know, from the commission to the

[1:52:30] planning commission and all around

[1:52:32] inside of there. Right? We've come up

[1:52:34] with a whole bunch of other things.

[1:52:36] Right? One is is that we have redone the

[1:52:38] HDHO.

[1:52:40] And that seems to have been successful.

[1:52:43] Watching the Del Sol project get pushed

[1:52:46] out last

[1:52:47] Is that last week? I believe that was

[1:52:49] last week. And to see the number of

[1:52:51] people that are being able to take care

[1:52:53] of that, talking with the folks over

[1:52:55] there at Murphy Flats and how quickly

[1:52:58] those units have come off of the market

[1:53:00] and seeing people actually come in and

[1:53:03] join these houses is incredible. Right?

[1:53:06] So, this could be an opportunity right

[1:53:08] here where we said have we fixed this so

[1:53:11] that we do maybe have a product, right,

[1:53:13] that we can put out? Um I don't know if

[1:53:15] you guys remembered last year that I

[1:53:17] came forward and brought up which I

[1:53:19] believe it was SB 38 which was the

[1:53:22] state's high density

[1:53:25] They didn't put through in the law.

[1:53:27] The response I got back from this board

[1:53:29] right here was why would we go with the

[1:53:32] state's program when we already have a

[1:53:35] program?

[1:53:36] My response back was, well, let's fix

[1:53:39] this thing and see how it goes. Right?

[1:53:41] So, if we do have something that seems

[1:53:43] like it works and looking at this HDHO,

[1:53:47] right, it might be able to solve a

[1:53:49] couple of our problems. Okay? If it was

[1:53:52] something that people could build on and

[1:53:53] it does have those restrictions in it I

[1:53:56] want to see if this would fit under if

[1:53:58] light tech programs would fit under

[1:54:00] LUTHER because if it did does, we

[1:54:03] already have the zones identified of

[1:54:05] where they belong and and when I looked

[1:54:07] at those zones and Andrew passed those

[1:54:09] out in that big map, right, they made

[1:54:11] sense to me. Right? They're in the zones

[1:54:14] of where the big pipe is. So, that's where I would imagine that you

[1:54:17] would want to put your high density

[1:54:19] housing. So, we already have high

[1:54:21] density identified, properties

[1:54:23] identified. Right? We have a program

[1:54:26] that seems like it's working.

[1:54:28] This seems like an easy way to go ahead

[1:54:31] and put this out without having to

[1:54:33] create a zone like MFR 45 which which

[1:54:36] was what we were looking for, right? And

[1:54:38] so, we're dropping from 45 now down to

[1:54:40] 35. Strike four.

[1:54:43] But it's still we're we're we're looking

[1:54:44] at at something that might actually be

[1:54:46] attainable. But also what we're looking

[1:54:48] at as well is we're looking at projects

[1:54:50] that we might be able to get built that

[1:54:53] we might get to be able to put into the

[1:54:55] hands of people who live here. Right?

[1:54:57] So, we might be looking at some of those

[1:54:59] starter homes as well

[1:55:01] um as we're going through it. Um if I

[1:55:03] was to make a recommendation on looking

[1:55:06] at the

[1:55:07] looking at how to implement this program

[1:55:10] would be to find out how many units

[1:55:13] would be available in the HDHO that we

[1:55:15] have set up and then space them in.

[1:55:19] Right? So, rather than saying and I'm

[1:55:21] just going to pick a number, let's say

[1:55:22] 750 units that we say that we want to

[1:55:25] open up for HDHO building.

[1:55:28] What if we phase those in to three

[1:55:30] phases? So, phase one is 250 units

[1:55:33] closer to town. Right? Phase two is over

[1:55:36] here with another 250 units moving out

[1:55:39] and then phase three would be out here

[1:55:41] as another

[1:55:43] 250 units. That way we're incentivizing

[1:55:46] that building to happen closer in town.

[1:55:50] These are rental units we're talking

[1:55:51] about.

[1:55:52] Uh HDHO and and that would be one thing

[1:55:54] that would be great would be to for this

[1:55:56] board to actually go if this is

[1:55:57] something that you're interested in to

[1:55:59] review those HDHO rules and how we

[1:56:02] revise it because they would be both.

[1:56:04] Right? They could be for sale or they

[1:56:06] could be for rent.

[1:56:08] Yeah.

[1:56:10] The The revision

[1:56:12] is that 30% of those that

[1:56:15] are like owner occupied that they could

[1:56:18] go as a

[1:56:19] rental units as long as they stay within

[1:56:22] that

[1:56:23] um

[1:56:24] income level.

[1:56:25] Right? Or other natural, yeah.

[1:56:28] My question actually was a little bit

[1:56:29] different. You answered Do you answered

[1:56:31] I think the question about why Andrew

[1:56:33] did this presentation? You did it

[1:56:35] beautifully. Yeah, my question was a

[1:56:37] little bit different. But that is I just

[1:56:39] wondered if we could

[1:56:40] when this

[1:56:41] housing task force finishes their report

[1:56:44] which I understand is pending and has

[1:56:47] been for some time, but it's close. My

[1:56:50] question was could one of the two people

[1:56:52] that is very very much

[1:56:55] you know, I I I think both Brian and

[1:56:57] Aaron are working with that task force,

[1:56:59] right?

[1:57:00] Um Aaron works with the task force. I'm

[1:57:02] I've just started

[1:57:03] >> to the first Thursdays.

[1:57:06] >> [laughter]

[1:57:09] » I was I was I was I was just invited

[1:57:11] into the task force the last

[1:57:13] Oh, this last Was it last two three

[1:57:16] weeks ago and I can't remember exactly

[1:57:18] what for, but they they had some

[1:57:19] questions on some updates for the county

[1:57:21] on kind of where we were going with our

[1:57:23] sub code.

[1:57:24] So, um but yeah, yeah, as soon as that

[1:57:26] pipeline study is ready Yeah, that was

[1:57:28] my request. It's going to be have

[1:57:30] somebody come in here and show us the

[1:57:31] results of this study.

[1:57:33] They had talked about doing it twice

[1:57:35] yearly. So Yeah. So, Aaron, if we could

[1:57:38] ask you of letting us know when that's

[1:57:41] done and then we'll have them come in

[1:57:42] and show us the results. I think

[1:57:44] everyone would be interested in seeing

[1:57:46] it.

[1:57:48] All right. I have a question.

[1:57:51] Um on the HDHO, is that where we're

[1:57:54] Are we going to to um

[1:57:57] bring that back? Because currently it's sunsetted. It's sunsetted. Yeah.

[1:58:02] That's right. You'd have to bring it

[1:58:02] back. So, we have to bring that whole

[1:58:04] thing back. That's why I'm bringing this

[1:58:06] conversation up.

[1:58:10] And maybe we start with a talk from the

[1:58:12] high density or from the housing task

[1:58:15] force and see what they plan to be the

[1:58:17] needs are. So, we this this will have to

[1:58:19] be a code amendment, too. Yeah.

[1:58:22] I have a question about the HDHO.

[1:58:25] How initially like of all the offerings

[1:58:28] that the county has given for HDHO, how

[1:58:31] many of them are now built and occupied?

[1:58:36] Do we know that or that's one of the

[1:58:37] questions we don't know the answer to

[1:58:38] yet? 53.

[1:58:42] That's it.

[1:58:43] 53? Did you hear that?

[1:58:45] Sorry, 53 units are built and occupied?

[1:58:50] Yes. 53 out of how many were like

[1:58:53] approved or offered by the county? There

[1:58:56] was a presentation in last summer,

[1:58:58] right?

[1:58:58] >> Yeah.

[1:58:59] You know, it's it's

[1:59:02] Yeah, but all of Murphy Flats, yeah,

[1:59:04] Peak View, you have Del Sol, and yeah,

[1:59:06] they might I mean, Peak View I think

[1:59:08] it's phase one only. That's all

[1:59:10] occupied, correct? Del Sol's maybe not

[1:59:12] occupied, but it's built. And that's a lot of units. That was a lot of

[1:59:16] glasses. Right. And Murphy Flats is

[1:59:18] probably all

[1:59:19] It's all built. I know that, and it's

[1:59:21] probably the bulk of it's occupied, I

[1:59:23] would assume. So, I think it's more than

[1:59:24] 53. Yeah, I'm just going on what was

[1:59:26] presented then.

[1:59:28] last summer.

[1:59:30] Right. Yeah, I think it's probably As of

[1:59:31] last summer, 300 HD

[1:59:35] HDHO units were approved and 53 were

[1:59:38] built and occupied as of last summer.

[1:59:40] So, we just need a current number on

[1:59:42] that.

[1:59:43] Yeah, I would say

[1:59:45] Okay.

[1:59:47] Cuz I would say we should look at, you

[1:59:49] know,

[1:59:54] HDHO

[1:59:57] has to may have that. Cuz yeah, that's

[2:00:00] right. You're right, Manny.

[2:00:01] How much do we have? Yeah. That's part

[2:00:03] of the information with

[2:00:10] Yeah. I asked how who would have that

[2:00:12] information? It would be HASU, right?

[2:00:14] Yeah.

[2:00:15] They should. Okay. So, Sarah, would you

[2:00:17] mind getting your hold of HASU and then

[2:00:19] reporting back to this organization next

[2:00:21] week?

[2:00:22] I will Yes, I will do that because I

[2:00:25] would like to make a data-driven,

[2:00:28] you know,

[2:00:30] uh plan going forward.

[2:00:32] >> [laughter]

[2:00:33] >> I think that's excellent. Thanks, Sarah.

[2:00:35] I think the task force

[2:00:39] All right.

[2:00:40] Yeah, and if that if the answer is the

[2:00:41] HASU and task force is going to give us

[2:00:43] that report, I think that's a fine

[2:00:44] answer, too.

[2:00:46] So, Ben, who's on the task force?

[2:00:49] He is the head of HASU, so he's very

[2:00:54] Yeah, he's very key on that. So, you

[2:00:56] know, I think they need a presentation

[2:00:58] to tell you and I'll be like Yeah, they

[2:01:00] also want those numbers and stuff cuz

[2:01:02] we're looking at that. Could we put that

[2:01:04] inside for future consideration? Yeah, I

[2:01:06] think actually what we asked is since

[2:01:07] everyone is going to the meetings

[2:01:09] anyways, when that's available, if he

[2:01:11] could ask and invite him to come.

[2:01:14] Okay. The Moorpark area affordable

[2:01:16] housing plan actually has a section in

[2:01:19] there for housing stock overview. And it

[2:01:21] gives you

[2:01:23] I don't know. I don't think it's

[2:01:24] updated, but it has quite a few of the information we're just talking

[2:01:28] about. So, you can find that.

[2:01:31] That's on the dashboard of the HASU,

[2:01:33] yeah. on the dashboard of the I'd

[2:01:35] recommend you guys can go look at the

[2:01:36] dashboard that they have Okay. going on.

[2:01:39] Uh but, they will come in and present

[2:01:41] that dashboard.

[2:01:44] With an explanation, it'd be awesome.

[2:01:45] Yeah. Yeah, that's great up here.

[2:01:48] All right.

[2:01:49] Um

[2:01:51] We're in future considerations. I think

[2:01:53] that was a good discussion. Do we have

[2:01:54] anything else for future consideration?

[2:01:57] Uh one other thing I'd like to

[2:01:59] find out with uh from that as well

[2:02:02] is the um white tech restrictions with

[2:02:04] the HDHO.

[2:02:06] So, if we can just make sure that that

[2:02:08] if we do go through with the the HDHO,

[2:02:12] if we're going to have problems with

[2:02:14] white tech.

[2:02:21] I would think Ben would have all of that

[2:02:23] cuz I know that I know that HASU has

[2:02:25] built white tech projects. I would

[2:02:27] assume he would have a fairly good grasp

[2:02:29] on

[2:02:30] all of that. Yeah, what are the what are

[2:02:32] the questions for them?

[2:02:34] I just wanted to know what kind of

[2:02:35] restrictions we might run into trying to

[2:02:37] put white tech on these HDHO over there.

[2:02:41] Yeah, good question. That would be

[2:02:43] interesting to see how that would work.

[2:02:45] Yeah, because I think that would that

[2:02:46] would help at least for my decision on

[2:02:47] if if this is a viable path in the

[2:02:49] beginning.

[2:02:51] And to getting this, I think that white

[2:02:52] tech is definitely something that we

[2:02:54] would need to consider moving forward

[2:02:56] for for that area of housing.

[2:02:59] Okay.

[2:03:01] All right. Do we have any more

[2:03:02] discussions under future consideration?

[2:03:05] If not, I'd entertain a motion to

[2:03:07] adjourn.

[2:03:08] I move.

[2:03:09] Second.

[2:03:10] Okay. I heard Barry. Manny put Manny.

[2:03:14] But, I was third.

[2:03:16] >> [laughter]

[2:03:17] >> Thanks, everyone, for

[2:03:18] sticking with us on a long meeting

[2:03:20] tonight. Very sorry about that. I didn't

[2:03:22] even know it was that late.

[2:03:29] What's that?

[2:03:33] Yeah, they were pretty quick this night.

3.23.26 Grand County Planning & Zoning

Transcript