Moab city officials asked the Grand County Commission on Sept. 16 to approve a major-utility overlay that would allow a municipal water storage tank and associated facilities on a roughly 3-acre site in Spanish Valley.

Supporters told the commission the site is hydraulically advantageous and would improve daily water-system performance and fire-suppression capacity. Opponents and nearby residents said the parcel has other potential community uses and urged more outreach and design detail before approval.

The request: The city team, led by Community Development Director Corey Shortliffe, asked the county to apply the county''s major-utility overlay to the parcel at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive. Shortliffe said the overlay request is limited to allowing the utility use; detailed engineering, permitting and mitigation would follow during site-plan review if the overlay is adopted.

Why it matters: City engineers and utilities staff said the project addresses an existing storage shortfall in Moab''s system and would improve fireflow and operational reliability for the valley. Ben Miner and Katie Jacobson, engineering consultants attending remotely, provided cost and design background and said a 1.5-million-gallon tank is being proposed after earlier studies considered larger alternatives.

On benefits and design: City staff said three main advantages drove the site selection: (1) the parcel is already owned or controlled by the city; (2) the site elevation allows local springs and wells to gravity-feed the tank, reducing pumping and operational cost; and (3) the location would enable an emergency interconnect with neighboring water systems to support Grand County customers during outages.

Moab Utilities Director Obi Tahada told the commission the higher-elevation site would "help hydraulically and for the fire supply" and noted it would be an asset during major emergencies.

Engineering and environmental points: The applicants presented geotechnical work (2015 and 2024 borings) and a 30%-level concept plan showing the buried tank profile, site drainage, an access drive and potential landscaping. Design excerpts provided to the commission show a partially buried tank with a low-profile mound and a required access and overflow route into a low-lying drainage. Consultants said the site is suitable from a soils and groundwater perspective and that mitigation items (erosion control, dust, noise and visual screening) will be addressed in subsequent design steps.

Concerns raised: Nearby residents and some commissioners pressed the city on visual impacts, alternative uses for the property (park or neighborhood amenities), tree and dark-sky impacts, construction dust and timing, and whether the overlay could be used to permit other uses. Several speakers asked specifically for guarantees that the county would require landscaping, fencing and a schedule of construction mitigation before any work began.

Public comment and process: The commission opened a formal public hearing on the overlay and took extensive testimony from residents, who said they were largely opposed to placing a tank on the parcel because they valued other uses for that site and were concerned about construction disruption. Planning Commission members had forwarded an unfavorable recommendation earlier; county staff advised that the overlay review is a legislative decision for the commission and that project-level mitigation would be handled later if the overlay is approved.

Next steps: Commission Chair Bill Winfield left the hearing open until the week following the meeting to allow staff to gather follow-up materials and to allow city and county engineers to address specific technical and visual mitigation questions. No final vote was taken at the Sept. 16 meeting.

Ending: The commission asked staff to supply additional material for both sides before the next meeting so commissioners could consider the overlay''s legislative question with the site-design and mitigation details that opponents and some commissioners requested.