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

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).