[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.