[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6655869,"mediaKeyId","5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d","parentId",5361745,"title","Moab planning commissioners workshop EV-readiness ordinance; staff to refine exceptions and thresholds","audioSeconds",3399,"startMs",156000,"endMs",3555000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d&start=156&end=3555","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d/thumbnail_156000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6655869/Utah/Moab-planning-commissioners-workshop-EV-readiness-ordinance-staff-to-refine-exceptions-and-thresholds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655869-c133403c04001066adaa458c58e5dc6a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770941067&Signature=SqhJiLxwgMILQMdAXJY1EWOUNZGVETgZ~XpnG-lKicCMLbY~zYxk~d614mDmnaIelR4u4qj92OBnKuhbWlz3mG4npLIhSdLzpgv3w3s7hle3vktQziKsr2qjVudHagkW02-~uyjSittBYRk6SCAE6ZE0YDMDC4NxgiaMUzMr-NMzbJzPPKLHaZRWWeU~pF6lpC987FgQM~dHHWl8al9C3~sKaR2NzKE2v~EhdooDFulmtUiDuPjuzF31DlVgZLzX-MWsD3EQUgSvXO2rt9q1fd0t6RNt9FYswmoSfKqSQt2K-EbfnfNDI6LJzARqbSbcmQFm4b0H3iL-g7VwaY1Pvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Moab City","date","2025-07-11T00:04:44Z","article","Moab City Planning Commission members and city staff returned July 10 to a draft ordinance aimed at making new multifamily housing ‘‘EV-capable’’ or ‘‘EV-ready’’ as part of the city’s emissions-reduction goals. Planning staff presented draft text, commissioners questioned the threshold that triggers the rules, and staff said it will refine the exception and administrative-review language before a public hearing.

The ordinance draft would apply to multi‑household dwellings and, as currently written, would kick in at three or more dwelling units. The draft sets 10% of spaces as EV-capable and an additional 10% as EV-ready (a combined 20% standard) and contains an exception process for development that cannot meet the standard as written. ‘‘This is how we have it written right now — 10% EV capable and 10% EV ready,’’ said Alexi Lamb, city planning staff, during the workshop.

Commissioners and staff debated three main questions: what unit count should trigger the standard (options discussed included three, five and seven units); whether townhomes with individual garages should be treated the same as apartment-style shared-parking projects; and how exceptions should be reviewed — administratively by staff or by the planning commission as a discretionary process. Planning staff and the city’s building official raised concerns about aligning the ordinance with state code distinctions between the International Residential Code and the International Building Code and with federal accessibility rules such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Why it matters: the threshold and exception rules affect small ‘‘missing middle’’ projects that developers say are most likely to face costly electrical upgrades. Commissioners said they want to avoid creating procedural hurdles that slow new housing while still advancing the city’s climate goal. Commissioner Miles Lofton said he favored a lower threshold tied to the city’s land-use code to standardize review; Commissioner Jill Tatton and others said they wanted strong—but defensible—exceptions language to avoid arbitrarily denying requests.

Discussion highlights
- Trigger level: Staff noted the municipal land‑use code currently treats three or more units as multi‑household; staff suggested retaining the land‑use threshold for consistency but offered options to raise the trigger to five or seven units to reduce small-project impacts.
- Townhomes and ownership: Barry, the city building official, and Alexi Lamb described townhomes as often built and served like single‑family homes (private garages and individual ownership) and therefore potentially less appropriate for a multifamily-triggered standard; commissioners raised the possibility of defining ‘‘shared parking’’ as a separate trigger but noted that ‘‘shared parking’’ is not yet a defined term in the code.
- Exception process and review authority: Staff described attorney feedback warning that overly vague administrative exceptions can be legally vulnerable and that discretionary, documented planning-commission findings are more defensible. Staff recommended aligning the exception process with existing discretionary exceptions (as used for landscaping) and building clear findings of fact to support any denials.
- Practical effects/costs: Commissioners and staff discussed likely installation costs and power needs. Staff and commissioners noted a 30–50 amp circuit in a new garage is a common step to make a unit ‘‘EV-ready’’ and estimated incremental costs as ranging from a few hundred dollars up to roughly $1,500 depending on site conditions and conduit runs. Commissioner Miles Lofton said two 40‑amp circuits in a garage are useful beyond charging electric vehicles, for tools or secondary appliances.

Direction and next steps
- Staff will tidy the draft ordinance, incorporate attorney comments, and return the proposed code in a structure ready for a public hearing. Alexi Lamb said the draft will be adjusted to match existing administrative practice where appropriate and to include a clearer exceptions process. No vote or formal action was taken.
- Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer definitions (for example, ‘‘shared parking’’), costs examples, and a recommended trigger option for the commission to consider at the next hearing.

Context and constraints: Commissioners noted technical factors outside city control — state code distinctions between IRC and IBC and ADA obligations — affect when higher standards reasonably apply. Staff flagged that certain small projects may be technically feasible for EV readiness but that mid‑scale ‘‘missing middle’’ projects sometimes require electrical upgrades that create the largest cost and feasibility questions.

Quotations
- Alexi Lamb, city planning staff: \"This is how we have it written right now — 10% EV capable and 10% EV ready.\"
- Barry, building official: \"Townhomes often have private garages…should we consider those developments differently?\" (paraphrased during the workshop)

What’s next: staff will revise the draft and bring a public‑hearing version back to the Planning Commission for formal consideration; city council will ultimately decide whether to adopt an ordinance.

Speakers quoted or recorded in the workshop included Alexi Lamb (city planning staff), Corey Shurtleff (city staff), Barry (building official), Miles Lofton (planning commissioner), Jill Tatton (planning commissioner), Carolyn Conant (planning commissioner), Kai Marenfeld (planning commissioner/chair) and Nathan (city attorney), among others.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Moab Regular Planning Commission Meeting - July 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Moab City Planning Commission members and staff revisited a draft electric‑vehicle readiness ordinance July 10, debating unit thresholds, how to treat townhomes versus shared‑parking multifamily projects, and the scope of an exceptions process.","taxTitle","Moab City Council, Moab, Grand County, Utah","taxId",23560,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6655859,"Planning commission grants landscaping exception for Bridal Lane duplexes, conditions require reallocation of frontage landscape elsewhere on lot",3145,4126000,7271000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d&start=4126&end=7271","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d/thumbnail_4126000.jpg","/articles/6655859/Utah/Planning-commission-grants-landscaping-exception-for-Bridal-Lane-duplexes-conditions-require-reallocation-of-frontage-landscape-elsewhere-on-lot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655859-5433399d811d3f7e3220198d3e78aa9e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770941067&Signature=AWjW4St1WQ223pEjpoUTjA4UU~6Gcc4OsDmllIWKuH2Bd6jtHbhFBLRjP9LvRV-Ptrb80P22JvtfjyS~qx03Z-CbCdDDOXizA5inlypluBnVDgYSmP2Tt3KBRo2YYNhv5~Yjp6s5wkZIEIvW0o8J7tWPBzn-Q2nDJV~BbQ2Y9mGB-AXyrU1wTd8MCdR16H6RA-wR0973zS8qYe78VdW6ILtIa1T1~mjWmGz6qiN58~qoTAtk2Woy5xWByeAk0h-I41SlIcbrbJZGN9Jid8hqTG4UePsgzI-PNrEg-M7CxqpD9qq2W4YZYhDNZq7LQWDapm0I5ql32H2shXovny3Zkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Moab City Planning Commission on July 10 approved Planning Resolution 11‑20‑25 granting a landscaping special exception for two duplex properties at 687 and 681 Bridal Lane, allowing applicants to reallocate required front‑yard landscaping into adjacent on‑site areas so the projects can retain additional on‑site parking.

Staff presented the mirrored duplex site as two separate parcels in the R‑2 zone. The applicants said strict application of the front‑yard landscaping standard would remove two on‑site parking stalls and push parking onto the street. Applicant Scott Irvine told commissioners, \"By having that parking up front…we'd lose two parking spots, and that could create some street parking. We're just trying to reduce that and make this still aesthetically pleasing by changing the landscaping as we've shown here.\"

Staff explained the parcels abut a floodplain to the rear, which constrains placement of additional parking behind the buildings. That restriction and the applicants’ stated intent to provide more on‑site parking for what staff described as workforce or multi‑occupant rental arrangements framed the commission’s discussion about tradeoffs between front‑yard landscaping requirements and the need for on‑site vehicle spaces.

What the commission approved: a motion to adopt Planning Resolution 11‑20‑25 approving the landscaping special exception for 687 and 681 Bridal Lane, provided that the landscaping percentage not met in the required front yard be recaptured elsewhere on the property in the area between the building envelope and the street (shown in the applicants’ site sketch) and that the reallocated area comply with the landscaping standards applicable to front yards. Commissioner Miles Lofton moved the resolution; Commissioner Jill Tatton seconded. The motion carried 4‑0.

Why it matters: the commission balanced neighborhood impacts — street parking and on‑site parking needs for multi‑occupant rental units — against the landscaping ordinance’s goals (shade, water‑wise planting and reduced heat‑island effect). The commission required that the reallocated landscaping area meet the same landscaping standards as a front yard to preserve canopy and permeability benefits.

Discussion points and conditions
- Constraints: staff and the applicant showed that rear areas are constrained by a floodplain and sewer easements; commissioners accepted that more rear parking was not feasible without significant permitting or environmental work.
- Reallocation and standards: the commission required that the landscaping percentage shortfall along the formal front yard be made up in the identified reallocated area and that the reallocated area comply with the landscaping code (for example, street trees and minimum planting percentages rather than solely gravel hardscape). Staff clarified that the motion does not waive other code requirements such as street‑tree minima; those remain in effect and will be reviewed with the final landscape plan.
- Documentation: commissioners said the approval should be followed by a complete landscape plan submitted with building permits so staff can confirm species, canopy trees and permeable area meet the ordinance’s intent.

Quotations
- Scott Irvine (applicant): \"We’re just trying to reduce that and make this still aesthetically pleasing by changing the landscaping as we’ve shown here.\"
- Planning staff (summary): staff noted the site’s floodplain and the applicants’ proposal to provide additional on‑site parking as rationale for allowing a reallocation of landscape area conditional on complying with landscape standards.

Action and next steps
- Motion: Approve Planning Resolution 11‑20‑25 with the condition that the reduced front‑yard landscaping percentage be reallocated into the area between the building envelope and the street and the reallocated area comply with the front‑yard landscaping standards.
- Mover: Miles Lofton. Second: Jill Tatton. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no. Outcome: approved.
- Staff will require a complete landscape plan with the building‑permit submittal to verify species, tree counts and permeable materials meet the conditions of the approval.

Speakers and participants recorded in the item included Johanna Blanco (planning staff presenting analysis), Scott Irvine (applicant/developer), planning commissioners Miles Lofton (mover), Jill Tatton (second), Carolyn Conant and Kai Marenfeld (chair).","The Planning Commission approved Planning Resolution 11‑20‑25 to allow two duplex properties on Bridal Lane to reduce front‑yard landscaping in order to retain on‑site parking; the approval requires the landscaping percentage be reallocated into the area between the buildings and the street and follow standard landscape requirements.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6655864,"Planning commission approves RCOG grant progress report and letter of attestation for downtown amenities",431,3640000,4071000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d&start=3640&end=4071","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5361745-ed367f923d1e55436bf531b312f63e7d/thumbnail_3640000.jpg","/articles/6655864/Utah/Planning-commission-approves-RCOG-grant-progress-report-and-letter-of-attestation-for-downtown-amenities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655864-2e39b73b4c85f455d3db074e19b4aafe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770941067&Signature=R0t8IjQ4dgQzvzzx6oNQZEha2qD9W8Rzklv9i~pq1yTL~0C2NvnU54Qvh2sPvtrndsSO6zvCRQhwdVR5n6pSTROxBKdZebGPsKxS-AGYT92BFNJ3jAlBsO7mGzO0~SpEi3r2H0OQsTX00LGdjR2s2QjSdwsN3Y0BIGh6-VGDABbFTlvqW-vyOAKsqdLSsCtzAlZH~HtTqFdHmqMQFdHjGw2iYBA-fjDu7bmYiuX6vYPgeRvmazDB1BEEBrVMjV2ad7vDhJqMdlIG-XBQMgNnjOd6V49hvBNG7Rte~xromV5ZhmxelB5knc1errcWu9~HEMET7kQabQRV4lqNJNw86g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Moab City Planning Commission on July 10 approved a progress report and a letter of attestation for the Rural Community Opportunity Grant (RCOG) that funded downtown dispersed-parking amenities, landscaping, benches and shade structures.

Planning staff reported the total grant award was $590,319 and that the city has completed most work and expects to submit final reimbursement this summer to close out the grant. Alexi Lamb, planning staff, summarized the grant expenditures and said the final payment application is being prepared.

Staff noted elements funded by the grant include lit bollards, landscaping (plants, mulch and irrigation), benches and shade structures; the project also included match funding from the city. Alexi Lamb said the governor’s office of economic opportunity requests evaluation metrics such as jobs created; staff will include measurable impacts to the extent they can be tied to the amenity work and business activity.

The commission moved and voted to approve the progress report and the letter of attestation. Commissioner Carolyn Conant moved to approve the letter of attestation; Commissioner Miles Lofton seconded. The motion passed 4‑0.

Why it matters: approving the attestation permits staff to finalize the grant’s annual report and submit final reimbursement paperwork to the grantor, enabling financial closeout of the RCOG award for the downtown amenities.

Quotations
- Alexi Lamb, city planning staff: \"The total grant award was $590,319, and the final reimbursement is getting ready to be submitted this summer.\"

Details and next steps
- Funded items called out in staff materials: lit bollards, benches, shade structures, landscaping components (plants, mulch, irrigation) and other site amenities in the dispersed‑parking area.
- Staff will prepare the final report with available evaluation data requested by the governor’s office of economic opportunity and submit the letter of attestation signed by the planning commission chair.

Speakers and action
- Motion to approve: Carolyn Conant (mover). Second: Miles Lofton. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no. Outcome: approved.

Speakers quoted or referenced in the item included Alexi Lamb (planning staff), Savannah Thomas Arrigo (new staff introduced), and planning commissioners Carolyn Conant, Miles Lofton, Jill Tatton and Kai Marenfeld.","The Moab Planning Commission voted July 10 to approve the 2025 RCOG progress report and a letter of attestation confirming project expenditures for downtown dispersed-parking amenities funded by a $590,319 Rural Community Opportunity Grant.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Moab planning commissioners workshop EV-readiness ordinance; staff to refine exceptions and thresholds

Planning commission grants landscaping exception for Bridal Lane duplexes, conditions require reallocation of frontage landscape elsewhere on lot

Planning commission approves RCOG grant progress report and letter of attestation for downtown amenities