HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2014-10-28Moab City Council
October 28i 2014
Pre -Council Workshop
6:30 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CENTER
(217 East Center Street)
CHAMBERS
AGENDA
Page 1 of 176
AGENDA
Page 2 of 176
Community Meetings
Oct 2014 (Mountain Time)
Mon
Tue Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
28
L 29
l 30
�
l 2
3
4
rpm - Castle Valley
5:30pm - Moab
7pm - Grand Wate-
l 5
7
l 8
l 9
L 10
l 11
2pm - USU Moab
4pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
12pm - Trail Mix @
3pm - Moab Valley
04pm - Grand
5pm - KZMU Board
5:30pm - Old
12pm - Housing
6pm - Grand County
4pm - Grand County
5:30pm - Grand
6pm - Thompson
7pm - Castle Valley
07pm - Moab City
7pm - Thompson
112
113
114
L15
L16
17
18
12:30pm - Grand
3pm - Moab Area
3:30pm - Grand
6pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
•6:30pm - Moab
6pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
6:30pm - Castle
7pm - Grand Water
l 19
l 20
121
l 22
l 23
L 24
l 25
4pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
1.5:30pm - Canyon!
7pm - Moab City
l 26
L 27
L 28
l 29
l 30
L 31
l 1
06:30pm - Moab
Page 3 of 176
Community Meetings
Nov 2014 (Mountain Time)
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
26
[27
[28
[29
[30
31
06:30pm - Moab
[ 2
[ 3
H
[ 6
7
L
2pm - USU Moab
4pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
12pm - Trail Mix @
3pm - Moab Valley
5pm - KZMU Board
5:30pm - Old
4pm - Grand
7pm - Castle Valley
5:30pm - Moab
[ 9
[10
[11
`12
[13
[14
[15
12:30pm - Grand
3pm - Moab Area
3:30pm - Grand
6pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
12pm - Housing
6pm - Grand County
4pm - Grand County
5:30pm - Grand
6pm - Thompson
7pm - Castle Valley
•7pm - Moab City
7pm - Thompson
F16
[17
[18
[19
[20
[21
[22
4pm - Grand County
6pm - Grand County
6:30pm - Castle
7pm - Grand Water
[23
[24
[ 25
[ 26
[ 27
[ 28
[29
••':30pm - Moab
6pm - Grand County
•5:30pm - Canyon!
•7pm - Moab City
[30
[ 1
[ 2
[ 3
[ 4
[ 5
Page 4 of 176
City of Moab
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532
Main Number (435) 259-5121
Fax Number (435) 259-4135
www.moabcity.org
Moab City Council
Regular Council Meeting
City Council Chambers
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
..........................................••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
6:30 p.m. PRE COUNCIL WORKSHOP
7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SECTION 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1-1 October 14, 2014
SECTION 2: CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
SECTION 3: DEPARTMENTAL UPDATES
3-1 Community Development Department
3-2 Engineering Department
3-3 Planning Department
3-4 Police Department
3-5 Public Works Department
SECTION 4:
SECTION 5:
SECTION 6:
SECTION 7:
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
4-1 Presentation of the Mayor's Student Citizenship of the Month Award for October
2014 for Helen M. Knight School
PUBLIC HEARING (Approximately 7:15 PM)
5-1
Public Input on Proposed Resolution #39-2014 — A Resolution Conditionally
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast Located on the
McElhaney Property at 100 Arches Drive in the R-2 Zone
SPECIAL EVENTS/VENDORS
NEW BUSINESS
7-1 Approval of Proposed Resolution # 46-2014 - A Resolution Approving a Lease
Agreement Between the Utah Department of Transportation and the City of Moab
For the Lease of Lions Park UDOT Lions Park Lease Agreement
7-2 Approval of Proposed Resolution #45-2014 —A Resolution Approving the Solid Waste
Collection Franchise Agreement
7-3 Consideration of Proposed Ordinance #2014-11— An Ordinance Establishing a Six
Month Temporary Land Use Regulation Pertaining to Short Term Rentals (two draft
versions presented)
AGENDA
Page 5 of 176
SECTION 8: MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
SECTION 9: READING OF CORRESPONDENCE
SECTION 10: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
SECTION 11: REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY COOPERATION
SECTION 12: APPROVAL OF BILLS AGAINST THE CITY OF MOAB
SECTION 13: ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should
notify the Recorder's Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259-5121 at least three (3) working days
prior to the meeting. Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
AGENDA
Page 6 of 176
MOAB CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
October 14, 2014
The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date in the
Council Chambers at the Moab City Center, located at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah.
Mayor David L. Sakrison called the Pre -Council Workshop to order at
6:30 PM. In attendance were Councilmembers Heila Ershadi, Gregg
Stucki, Kyle Bailey, Doug McElhaney and Kirstin Peterson. Also in
attendance were City Manager Donna Metzler, City Recorder/Assistant
City Manager Rachel Stenta, Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, City
Treasurer Jennie Ross, Assistant City Engineer Eric Johanson and Public
Works Director Jeff Foster.
Mayor Sakrison called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00
PM and led the pledge of allegiance. Nineteen (19) members of the
audience and media were present.
Councilmember Stucki moved to approve the Regular Meeting minutes
of September 23, 2014. Councilmember Ershadi seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0 aye.
There were no Citizens to Be Heard.
Under Community Development Department Update, Community
Development Director Olsen stated that he had been working on the
500 West landscaping project.
Under Engineering Department Update, Assistant City Engineer
Johanson stated that the 500 West Waterline project was currently out
to bid and that the Lions Park project was going well and seemed to be
under budget.
Under Planning Department Update, Planning Director Reinhart stated
staff had been monitoring - online — illegal, nightly, rentals and
increasing enforcement. Planning Director Reinhart stated that the
General Plan process was gearing up again and that the Planning
Commission was working on an affordable housing tool box.
A Police Department Update was not given.
Under Public Works Department Update, Public Works Director Foster
October 14, 2014
REGULAR MEETING &
ATTENDANCE
PRE -COUNCIL WORKSHOP
REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO
ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
ENGINEERING UPDATE
PLANNING UPDATE
POLICE UPDATE
PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE
AGENDA
Page 1 of 4
Page 7 of 176
stated that he would be attending a Waste Water Treatment Plant
(WWTP) meeting with the Division of Water Quality the next week to
discuss possible funding sources for a plant upgrade. Public Works
Director Foster continued that staff had been very busy with storm
clean up and that he had been working on the 500 West Waterline
project. Public Works Director Foster stated that the street survey was
underway and that the sealcoat project had been a success.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the public works department for the
new crosswalk on 200 South and 400 East and inquired if there had
been any progress in correcting the Main Street pedestrian signals.
Public Works Director Foster stated that the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT) was looking into options for the pedestrian light
issues.
Councilmember Bailey moved to approve a Special Business Event
License for the Youth Garden Project to Conduct the Annual Pumpkin
Chuckin' Festival at the Grand County High School on October 25, 2014.
Councilmember Peterson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0
aye.
Councilmember Ershadi moved to approve a Request by Youth Garden
Project for a Refund of the Special Business Event Fee in an Amount not
to exceed $200. Councilmember Peterson seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-1 aye with Councilmember Stucki voting nay.
Councilmember Stucki moved to approve a Request by Sara Hatathley
for an Amplified Music Event at Old City Park on October 17, 2014.
Councilmember McElhaney seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-
0 aye.
Councilmember McElhaney moved to approve the Safety Specialist Job
Description. Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5-0 aye.
Councilmember Peterson moved to Award the Telephone System
Proposal to Emery Telecom in the amount of $22,447.94.
Councilmember McElhaney seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-
0 aye by a roll -call -vote.
Councilmember Ershadi moved to grant Local Consent for a Special Use
Permit for Industrial and Manufacturing of Alcohol for Sundial
October 14, 2014
SPECIAL EVENT LICENSE FOR
PUMPKIN CHUCKIN',
APPROVED
REFUND OF FEES FOR YOUTH
GARDEN PROJECT, APPROVED
AMPLIFIED MUSIC EVENT AT
OLD CITY PARK, APPROVED
SAFETY SPECIALIST JOB
DESCRIPTION, APPROVED
TELEPHONE SYSTEM
AWARDED TO EMERY
TELECOM
LOCAL CONSENT GRANTED
FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING OF
AGENDA
Page 2 of 4
Page 8 of 176
Medicinals, LLC Located at 484 Sundial Drive. Councilmember Peterson
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0 aye.
Councilmember Stucki moved to approve Proposed Resolution #43-2014
— A Resolution Approving Depositories for Moab City Funds.
Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0
aye.
Councilmember Ershadi moved to approve Proposed Resolution #41-
2014 — A Resolution Conditionally Approving the Preliminary Plat For the
Deer Trail Townhome Subdivision on Property Located at 792 West 400
North in the R-4 Zoning District. Councilmember Stucki seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-0 aye.
Councilmember Peterson moved to Send Proposed Resolution #39-2014
— A Resolution Conditionally Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a
Bed and Breakfast Located on the McElhaney Property at 100 Arches
Drive in the R-2 Zone to Public Hearing on October 28, 2014.
Councilmember Stucki seconded the motion. Councilmember
McElhaney declared that he would be abstaining from voting as the
applicant was his son. The motion carried 4-0 aye with Councilmember
McElhaney abstaining.
Under Discussion Regarding Solid Waste Collection Contract, City
Manager Metzler made a presentation. Discussion followed.
Under Discussion Regarding City Provided Health Insurance, City
Recorder/Assistant City Manager Stenta made a presentation.
Discussion followed.
Under Reading of Correspondence, Councilmember Ershadi stated that
she had received a lot of correspondence regarding the proposed bed
and breakfast.
Under Mayor And Council Reports, councilmember McElhaney stated
that he attended a tour with Fidelity and had found it very informative.
Mayor Sakrison stated that the Airport Board was asking Grand County
for capital improvement funding to accommodate jet service.
Under Administrative Report, City Manager Metzler stated that
interviews would begin in the next two weeks for the career service
positons of Police Lieutenant and City Engineer and that the Lease
October 14, 2014
ALCOHOL
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #43-
2014, APPROVED
PROPOSED RESOLUTON #41-
2014, APPROVED
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #39-
2014 SENT TO PUBLIC
HEARING
DISCUSSION REGARDING SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION
CONTRACT
DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY
PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE
READING OF
CORRESPONDENCE
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
REPORTS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
AGENDA
Page 3 of 4
Page 9 of 176
Agreement for Lions Park would be on the next City Council agenda.
No Report was given on City/County Cooperation.
Councilmember Ershadi moved to pay the bills against the City of Moab
in the amount of $513,374.00. Councilmember McElhaney seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-0 aye by a roll -call -vote.
Mayor Sakrison adjourned the Regular Council Meeting at 7:36 PM.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
David L. Sakrison Rachel E. Stenta
Mayor City Recorder
October 14, 2014
REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY
COOPERATION
APPROVAL OF BILLS
ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
Page 4 of 4
Page 10 of 176
f
Agenda Summary
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
...October 28, 2o3. I
Agenda Rent
# 5-1
cdiSY o
imiAT._
MOAB
PL-14-068
Title: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast to be
Located in the R-2 Zone at 100 Arches Drive, as Favorably Referred to Council by the Planning
Commission
Staff Presenter(s): Jeff Reinhart, Sommar Johnson
Department: Planning and Zoning
Applicant: Jeramey and Mary McElhaney
Background/Summary:
The City has received an application from Mary and Jeramey McElhaney to establish a bed and
breakfast on their property at 100 Arches Drive. The property is currently undeveloped and is the last
undeveloped lot on Arches Drive. The proposal includes construction of a 3,721 square foot home
with attached structures covering of 1,152 square feet and 864 square feet. All of the structures are
two story and five (5) rooms for short term rental use will be constructed on the second floors of the
attached buildings. The larger structure will consist of a four car garage on the ground level with three
rental units above and the smaller structure will serve as a ground level two car garage/shop area
with two rental units on the second floor.
Currently, a day care center is operated by the applicants on an adjacent property on Arches Drive.
This use will be discontinued when the Bed and Breakfast is constructed on the site at 100 Arches
Drive and the applicants move into the new home. The applicants have stated that there will be a
noticeable decrease in neighborhood traffic because of the closing of the daycare.
Parking is exceeded with five off street spaces for the rental units and 6 for the dwelling. Also, there
are at least four spaces for trailer parking.
The Planning Commission held a two part public hearing that ended on September 25. Many of the
issues were addressed by research that City Staff had conducted. Additional information was also
provided by the applicant. A Planning Commission memo from September 25 (PL-14-060) is attached
your review.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Commission voted 3-0 to favorably refer the application to Council for
approval. Four conditions were established in Planning Resolution #11-2014 and include:
1. The bed and breakfast shall be reviewed each year for code compliance.
2. All lighting shall be downward directed and full cutoff as required in MMC section
17.09.660, H, Lighting Plan.
3. Fencing and/or landscaping shall be used to buffer the parking area and the entrance
from the street.
AGENDA
Page 11 of 176
Page 2 of 5
4. The daycare center will discontinue operations once the bed and breakfast facility is
operational.
Review Criteria
1. MMC Section 17.09.530, Conditional Use Permits, (A) describes a conditional use as "a land
use that, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the city, surrounding neighbors,
or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible in some areas or may be compatible only if certain
conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate detrimental impacts. If the reasonably anticipated
detrimental effects of a proposed conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or
the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve compliance with applicable standards, the
conditional use may be denied. Conditional use permits may be approved for the uses indicated in
the use regulations of the zoning district of the property for which the conditional use permit is
requested." Specific review criteria for individual conditional uses are required by state law. The
Council adopted these criteria in 2000 and 2006 for tougher standards for B&Bs. These are included in
the addendum below.
2. Utah State Code Title 10 Chapter 9a Section 507, Conditional uses, addresses this land use
type in the following terms:
"(1) A land use ordinance may include conditional uses and provisions for conditional uses that
require compliance with standards set forth in an applicable ordinance.
(2) (a) A conditional use shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed, or can be
imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in
accordance with applicable standards.
(b) If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed conditional use cannot be
substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve
compliance with applicable standards, the conditional use may be denied."
Process:
17.09.530 contains the process for a conditional use permit. Two public hearings are held; one before
the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. As noted above, there are specific criteria
that are used by both boards for the approval of the conditional use, and it is specifically understood
that certain listed criteria may not apply to a particular application. The applicant is required to
adequately demonstrate that the following applicable criteria have been or can be met:
1. The proposed conditional use and accessory uses are compatible with adjacent existing uses
and other allowed uses in the zoning district. Such compatibility shall be expressed in terms
of appearance, architectural scale and features, site design and scope, landscaping, as well as
the control of adverse impacts including noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, gas, dust, odor,
lighting, glare, traffic minimization or circulation, parking issues, or other undesirable or
hazardous conditions.
2. The proposed conditional use has incorporated design features sufficient to protect adjacent
uses including but not limited to: service areas, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, safety
provisions, access ways to and from the site, buffering, fencing, and site building placement.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare through
effective management or prohibition of outdoor storage, a required sewer connection, and
proper disposal of waste.
AGENDA
Page 12 of 176
Page 3 of 5
4. Adequate public services such as streets, off-street parking, pedestrian facilities, water,
sewer, gas, electricity, police, fire, and EMS protection must be available without the
reduction of services to other existing uses.
5. Provisions for proper maintenance of the building, parking and loading areas, drives, lighting,
signs, landscaping, etc. shall be provided.
6. The proposed conditional use shall conform to all regulations of this code concerning adopted
plans, hours of operation, polices and requirements for parking and loading, signs, highway
access, and all other applicable regulations.
7. The use is consistent with the city of Moab General Plan as amended.
8. The applicant must demonstrate that site impacts within the property as well as adjoining
properties have been fully mitigated appropriate to the topography of the site. The review of
impacts include, at a minimum, slope retention, flood potential, and possible damage to
riparian or hillside areas.
After considering the public comment relating to the criteria listed above in relation to the
requested conditional use permit, the City Council shall adopt a resolution stating their findings of
the applicant's demonstrated ability to meet the criteria.
The City Council, respectively, may establish additional conditions of operation, location,
arrangement and construction in the issuance of a conditional use permit if deemed to be in the
public interest or to assure compliance with other aspects of the Moab Municipal Code.
Addendum
17.09.530
(9) Bed and Breakfast, Rooming or Boarding House.
A. All such uses shall comply with the following preconditions:
1. Bed and Breakfast facilities, rooming and/or boarding houses may be allowed as a
conditional use permit where applicant can show evidence of compliance with outlined
standards and procedures and where there is clearly minimal negative impact on adjacent
residential properties and neighborhoods. An inspection by the building inspector, fire
chief and health department shall be required prior to the issuance of a permit and as
often as necessary for enforcement of this chapter. No person shall operate a bed and
breakfast unless the person holds a valid permit and business license. For purposes of
obtaining a conditional use permit, rooming and/or boarding houses shall abide by the
same regulations as a bed and breakfast facility.
2. A letter of application sworn before a notary public shall be provided by the owner(s)
stating that such owner will occupy the facility, as provided for herein. The letter shall be
AGENDA
Page 13 of 176
Page 4 of 5
recorded by the city recorder with a certified copy to accompany the application. The
letter shall also be submitted to the planning commission for its consideration.
3. The conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast facility shall be granted annually
from the date of the original permit. At the end of the one-year period, renewal shall be
granted by the planning commission if all other conditions required at the time of
approval remain unchanged.
4. A change in ownership as defined herein will require a new conditional use permit.
5. Applicant must provide plot plans and building or floor plans one -quarter inch to the
foot showing the Bed and Breakfast facility, parking and landscaping. Applicant must
show that the facility meets minimum performance standards in B below and landscaping.
Plans shall be approved by the building inspector, zoning administrator, fire chief and
health department.
6. Applicant must complete the bed and breakfast home occupation form in order to
complete the conditional use permit application process.
B. Requirements.
1. The bed and breakfast facility shall not unduly increase local traffic in the immediate
neighborhood. Road design and access shall be considered in the planning commission's
recommendation. Construction and alterations of bed and breakfast facilities shall not
alter the residential character of residential zones and of the dwelling.
2. The parcel shall also be of sufficient size to be in scale with the number of people
using the facility. All bed and breakfast rentals must provide adequate parking (required
one off-street parking space per rental bedroom) in addition to needed parking for owners
of the facility, have a maximum thirty -day stay, and meals shall be served to guests only
bed and breakfast: Zoning R2, R3, R4).
3. All units shall have a parcel to finished dwelling unit ratio that exceeds five to one (or
no dwelling unit in excess of twenty percent of the total parcel size area).
4. No bed and breakfast facility shall rent for compensation more than seven rooms,
except that suites that do not use a public corridor or passageway between suite bedroom
areas shall be counted as one room.
5. No bed and breakfast facility shall allow more than two adults in any rental room
unless the bedroom square footage is larger than three hundred square feet and does not
use a public corridor or passageway between suite bedroom areas.
AGENDA
Page 14 of 176
Page 5 of 5
6. Signs are limited to one nonflashing sign not larger in area then two hundred twenty-
six square inches. If lighted, the light shall be defused or shielded.
7. All bed and breakfast facilities shall pay water and sewer rates according to the rate
formulas contained in Sections 13.24.010 and 13.24.020
8. All bed and breakfasts must collect and pay an applicable transient room tax, sales tax
and city gross business license fee.
9. The bed and breakfast facility shall conform to fire, building and health codes and be
licensed in conformance with all city ordinances. Any other appropriate or more stringent
conditions deemed necessary for bed and breakfast facilities protecting public health,
safety, welfare and the residential character of residential zones may be required by the
planning commission.
j:\agenda draft documents \I0-28-2014\p8z\arches b8b\p1-14-088 final cc arches b86.docx
AGENDA
Page 15 of 176
CITY OF MOAB
RESOLUTION #39-2014
A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BED AND
BREAKFAST LOCATED ON THE MCELHANEY PROPERTY AT 100 ARCHES DRIVE IN THE R-2
ZONE
WHEREAS, Jeramey and Mary McElhaney at 95 Arches Drive, as the Owners of record ("Owners") of a
24,830 square foot (.57 acre) parcel of property also located in the R-2 Zone at 100 Arches drive, have applied for a
conditional use permit to establish a bed and breakfast at the described property; and,
WHEREAS, the Owners have provided the City of Moab with the necessary documents, plans and,
drawings to complete the application for said use as required under Land Use Code Chapters 17.09.530 and
17.09.531; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed five -room bed and breakfast is allowed in the R-2 Zone only if the Owner lives
on the property and is granted a conditional use permit as provided in Chapter 17.09.530; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application in a duly advertised public hearing held
on September 11, 2014, and subsequently adopted Resolution No. 11-2014, at said hearing, favorably
recommending the application to City Council (Council); and,
WHEREAS, Council reviewed the application in a duly advertised public hearing on October 28, 2014 to
hear testimony and review the code requirements for the use of a bed and breakfast; and,
WHEREAS, Council determined that the proposed bed and breakfast appears to be in compliance with the
requirements of the applicable chapters of the Title 17.00, Moab Land Use Code for a conditional use permit and
specifically or a Bed and Breakfast; and
WHEREAS, having considered public comment, Staff recommendations, and discussion of the pertinent
aspects of the development, the Moab City Council does hereby find, determine, and declare, that all applicable
provisions of the Moab Municipal Code have or can be met.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council that the conditional use of a bed and breakfast on
the above described property is approved with the following conditions:
1. The bed and breakfast shall be reviewed each year for code compliance.
2. All lighting shall be downward directed and full cutoff as required in MMC section 17.09.660, H,
Lighting Plan.
3. Fencing and/or landscaping shall be used to buffer the parking area and the entrance from the
street.
4. The daycare center will discontinue operations once the bed and breakfast facility is operational.
PASSED AND APPROVED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of Moab City Council on
the day of , 2014.
SIGNED:
David L. Sakrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachel Stenta, Recorder
p:\planning department\2014\resolutions \ council \#39-2014 arches hEh.docx
AGENDA
Page 16 of 176
CITY OF MOAB
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #39-2014 — A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST
LOCATED ON THE MCELHANEY PROPERTY AT 100 ARCHES DRIVE IN
THE R-2 ZONE
The City of Moab will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at
approximately 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Moab City Offices at 217
East Center Street, Moab, Utah.
The purpose of this hearing is to solicit public input on Proposed Resolution #39-
2014 — A Resolution Conditionally Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed
and Breakfast Located on the McElhaney Property at 100 Arches Drive in the R-
2 Zone.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder's Office at 217
East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259-5121 at least three (3)
working days prior to the meeting.
/s/ Rachel E. Stenta
City Recorder/Assistant City Manager
Published in the Times Independent, October 16 and 23, 2014.
AGENDA
R:\Notices\2014\res 39-2014 bandb PH.docx
Page 17 of 176
Page 18 of 176
mo Arches Drive
om t e sout east
1
Page 19 of 176
-�rr�z�rs�r7:
View from wo Arches Drive to the southeast
showing street slope into the property and
detention wall
I
Page 21 of 176
Image of added drain pipe into right-of-way
Page 22 of 176
Surrounding properties -1
Page 23 of 176
zrmEm
i!MZ:L=
Page 26 of 176
Surrounding properties -4
Page 27 of 176
Street view of ioo Arches Dr. from southeast
Page 28 of 176
Page 29 of 176
New retainin •
etention wa
w
Page 30 of 176
Page 31 of 176
Page 32 of 176
IIM=:L=
znmEm
ii!MZ:L=
Page 36 of 176
mage s owing u i i y
easement road and
straw bale diversion
Page 37 of 176
Page 38 of 176
Page 39 of 176
View of storm water easement
itc nort o t e su • ject
property
Page 40 of 176
View of storm water outfall onto Rose Tree Lane
Page 41 of 176
Page 42 of 176
f
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
September 11, 2014 I
PL-i4-DRD
Agenda Item
#3&4:
Title: Continuation of Public Hearing and Review and Approval of Planning Resolution #11-2014 for
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast to be Located in the R-2 Zone at 100
Arches Drive
Staff Presenter(s): Jeff Reinhart, Sommar Johnson
Department: Planning and Zoning
Applicant: Jeramey and Mary McElhaney
Background/Summary:
The public hearing for this B&B application was reopened and continued to the meeting on September
25, 2014. The action item approving the resolution was tabled and will need to be taken from the table
prior to any action being made.
Several issues were raised by the attending citizens and Staff was directed to investigate the concerns
and report back to the Commission with the results.
1. A misunderstanding about the status of a day care center and an additional business in a
residence was resolved by Sarah Atherton of Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Child
Development. There is no regulation that will prevent a day care business from locating in a
residence that has an additional business within. If the day care business for 8-16 children was
proposed in the new home, it could be approved through the conditional use permit process.
The applicant has expressed that they no longer wish to have the day care business and are
voluntarily terminating the use.
2. The drainage issue is complicated and the city has made an effort to organize the homeowners
and an adjacent owner of undeveloped property to jointly address the issue. Apparently, some
discussion has taken place between the parties, but this detail was not raised during the public
hearing. Also, the city has in the past required storm water to be retained by individual property
owners. This was manifested in a retaining wall that runs across the fronts of one of the lots on
the northeast side of Arches Drive as shown in the attached pictures. The retaining wall serves
two purposes: Slope stabilization and water detention. However, an enterprising resident has
seen fit to breach the detention wall and illegally drain his storm water directly into the City
right-of-way.
In addition, the city has maintained a storm water easement and drainage ditch behind the
properties in an effort to control the direction of storm water flows. The attached pictures
indicate the bale dam that was installed within the drainage easement.
1
AGENDA
Page 43 of 176
3. Traffic was also raised as an issue and it was pointed out that the overall traffic count will drop
with the termination of the day care business. The ITE trip manual indicates that a B&B can
generate up to 8.9 Average daily Trips (ADT)/unit and a single family residence 10-12 ADT.
However, independent local studies show that trips for a B&B are lower than the ITE
information and that a single family residence can be much higher. Individual local single use
studies are rarely completed and usually are conducted on a more regional context. The average
trips are low because of the way that B&Bs function. Unlike an inn, B&Bs serve breakfasts where
an inn will have lunch and dinner. So, once the lodger leaves for the day, they will rarely return
until evening. Some will eat before returning to retire for the evening and others may return to
the B&B to change before dinner adding a second trip to the traffic count.
4. Parking was raised as an issue and was addressed by the applicant. The code requirement is for
the B&B to provide 1 space for each rented room. In addition, two off-street spaces must be
provided for the owner of the residence. The parking plan shows the five required spaces as well
as areas for 4 or more trailer spaces. In addition, the ground floors of the rental structures will
provide up to six spaces for the residential use.
5. A concern about noise. The property owners must live on site. A B&B is not a nightly rental run
by a manager who has no connection to the ownership of the property.
6. The Small Business Development center studies shows that where an inn employs an average of
4.6 people, the majority of B&Bs are family run and do not have employees. No additional help
is required. The average number of rooms in a B&B is 8.5, up from 8 in 2000 so for the most part
the businesses are small scale and remain so. Rural B&Bs get most of their business on the
weekends and in the vacation season of April through September. Oftentimes they serve as a
weekend getaway. In comparison, urban locations may be fully operational year round. (
7. A description of the typical B&B guest may dispel other issues. A Michigan State study shows
that B&B travelers are middle-aged, well-educated, (moderately) high income, married
professionals. Latest studies also show that 82% of the travelers are married with just less than
50% having kids at home. The average age for a traveling party is 40 years old with 60% percent
below the age. "This indicates that many B&B guests are at a mid -point in the traditional family
cycle, when raising children is a primary activity. Newlyweds and "empty nesters" account for a
smaller proportion and, only 9 percent of the market is attributed to adults over 59 years of age.
8. A comment made by one of the attendees of the public hearing, suggested support for the B&B
if everyone in the neighborhood could do the same nightly rental. The code does allow each
resident to apply for a conditional use permit to have the B&B use on their individual properties
if they can meet the specific requirements as spelled out in MMC Sections 17.09.
9. In the written comments passed on to the Planning Commission, a reference to the prohibition
of boarding houses in residential zones was made (MMC 17.71.030). Boarding houses were
removed from residential areas because they were largely comprised of apartments (Cedar
Breaks, Purple Sage, Fandango, etc., that were converted into nightly rentals. They did not have
a managerial presence and usually a property management company collected the rents and
maintained the grounds. The bed and breakfast, on the other hand, requires that the property
owners live on the premises.
AGENDA
Page 44 of 176
10. Also, there were numerous complaints about the day care voiced during the public hearing
portion of the meeting. However, staff has never received a complaint since the day care has
been in operation.
Process:
A review of the requirements for this conditional use permit may be useful to the Commission. Code
Section 17.09.530 contains the process for a conditional use permit and there are general criteria that
must be used by the Commission to determine if the applicant has met or can meet the intent of the
code. It is specifically understood that certain listed criteria may not apply to a particular application
and the applicant is required to adequately demonstrate that the applicable criteria have been met:
1. The proposed conditional use and accessory uses are compatible with adjacent existing uses
and other allowed uses in the zoning district. Such compatibility shall be expressed in terms
of appearance, architectural scale and features, site design and scope, landscaping, as well
as the control of adverse impacts including noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, gas, dust, odor,
lighting, glare, traffic minimization or circulation, parking issues, or other undesirable or
hazardous conditions.
2. The proposed conditional use has incorporated design features sufficient to protect
adjacent uses including but not limited to: service areas, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, safety provisions, access ways to and from the site, buffering, fencing, and site
building placement.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare through
effective management or prohibition of outdoor storage, a required sewer connection, and
proper disposal of waste.
4. Adequate public services such as streets, off-street parking, pedestrian facilities, water,
sewer, gas, electricity, police, fire, and EMS protection must be available without the
reduction of services to other existing uses.
5. Provisions for proper maintenance of the building, parking and loading areas, drives,
lighting, signs, landscaping, etc. shall be provided.
6. The proposed conditional use shall conform to all regulations of this code concerning
adopted plans, hours of operation, polices and requirements for parking and loading, signs,
highway access, and all other applicable regulations.
7. The use is consistent with the city of Moab General Plan as amended.
8. The applicant must demonstrate that site impacts within the property as well as adjoining
properties have been fully mitigated appropriate to the topography of the site. The review
of impacts include, at a minimum, slope retention, flood potential, and possible damage to
riparian or hillside areas.
AGENDA
Page 45 of 176
After considering the public comment relating to the criteria listed above in relation to the
requested conditional use permit, the Planning Commission shall adopt a resolution stating their
findings of the applicant's demonstrated ability to meet the criteria.
MMC Section 17.09.530 also contains the specific standards that individual B&Bs must meet.
1. Bed and breakfast facilities, rooming and/or boarding houses may be allowed as a conditional
use permit where applicant can show evidence of compliance with outlined standards and
procedures and where there is clearly minimal negative impact on adjacent residential
properties and neighborhoods. An inspection by the building inspector, fire chief and health
department shall be required prior to the issuance of a permit and as often as necessary for
enforcement of this chapter. No person shall operate a bed and breakfast unless the person
holds a valid permit and business license. For purposes of obtaining a conditional use permit,
rooming and/or boarding houses shall abide by the same regulations as
a bed and breakfast facility.
2. A letter of application sworn before a notary public shall be provided by the owner(s) stating
that such owner will occupy the facility, as provided for herein. The letter shall be recorded by
the city recorder with a certified copy to accompany the application. The letter shall also be
submitted to the planning commission for its consideration.
3. The conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast facility shall be granted annually from the
date of the original permit. At the end of the one-year period, renewal shall be granted by the
planning commission if all other conditions required at the time of approval remain unchanged.
4. A change in ownership as defined herein will require a new conditional use permit.
5. Applicant must provide plot plans and building or floor plans one -quarter inch to the foot
showing the bed and breakfast facility, parking and landscaping. Applicant must show that the
facility meets minimum performance standards for off-street parking and landscaping as
specified in Section 17.70.080(B). Plans shall be approved by the building inspector, zoning
administrator, fire chief and health department.
6. Applicant must complete the bed and breakfast home occupation form in order to complete the
conditional use permit application process.
B. Requirements.
1. The bed and breakfast facility shall not unduly increase local traffic in the immediate
neighborhood. Road design and access shall be considered in the planning commission's
recommendation. Construction and alterations of bed and breakfast facilities shall not alter the
residential character of residential zones and of the dwelling.
2. The parcel shall also be of sufficient size to be in scale with the number of people using the
facility. All bed and breakfast rentals must provide adequate parking (required one off-street
parking space per rental bedroom) in addition to needed parking for owners of the facility, have
a maximum thirty -day stay, and meals shall be served to guests only (bed and breakfast: Zoning
R2, R3, R4).
AGENDA
Page 46 of 176
3. All units shall have a parcel to finished dwelling unit ratio that exceeds five to one (or no
dwelling unit in excess of twenty percent of the total parcel size area).
4. No bed and breakfast facility shall rent for compensation more than seven rooms, except that
suites that do not use a public corridor or passageway between suite bedroom areas shall be
counted as one room.
5. No bed and breakfast facility shall allow more than two adults in any rental room unless the
bedroom square footage is larger than three hundred square feet and does not use a public
corridor or passageway between suite bedroom areas.
6. Signs are limited to one nonflashing sign not larger in area then two hundred twenty-six square
inches. If lighted, the light shall be defused or shielded.
7. All bed and breakfast facilities shall pay water and sewer rates according to the rate formulas
contained in Sections 13.24.010 and 13.24.020
8. All bed and breakfasts must collect and pay an applicable transient room tax, sales tax and city
gross business license fee.
9. The bed and breakfast facility shall conform to fire, building and health codes and be licensed in
conformance with all city ordinances. Any other appropriate or more stringent conditions
deemed necessary for bed and breakfast facilities protecting public health, safety, welfare and
the residential character of residential zones may be required by the planning commission.
C. Appeals. Approval or disapproval of a bed and breakfast application by the planning commission
can be appealed to the appeal authority within ten days of planning commission action.
Options: The Planning Commission can:
1. Adopt Resolution #11-2014 as written and recommend that Council approve the conditional use
permit for the plans of the bed and breakfast as submitted;
2. Adopt Resolution #11-2014 and recommend that Council approve the conditional use permit
for the plans of the bed and breakfast with conditions;
3. Vote to not adopt Resolution #11-2014 and state their reasons;
4. Table the vote on the resolution until a later date and request additional information
Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Planning Resolution #11-2014 recommending to Council the
approval of the bed and breakfast for the property located at 100 Arches Drive with the conditions that:
1. The bed and breakfast shall be reviewed each year for code compliance.
2. All lighting shall be downward directed and full cutoff as required in MMC section
17.09.660, H, Lighting Plan.
3. Fencing and/or landscaping shall be used to buffer the parking area and the entrance from
the street.
AGENDA
Page 47 of 176
Attachment(s):
Addendum
Resolution #11-2014
Narrative
Site Plan
Nightly rentals as used in the context of 17.09.700 Residential short-term rentals prohibited.
1. Except for bed and breakfast facilities and guest apartments that comply with
Chapters 17.70 and 17.71 of the Moab Municipal Code, the short-term rental of dwellings is
prohibited in the following zones: A-2, C-1, C-5, FC-1, 1-1, 0-1, R&D-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RA-1,
and all other zones where short-term rentals are not listed as a permitted use.
2. A. For the purposes of this section, "short-term rental" shall be defined as:
1. The use, occupancy, rent or lease, for direct or indirect remuneration, of a structure or any
portion thereof constructed for single-family or multifamily occupancy or of any other
residential property for an effective term of thirty consecutive calendar days or less;
2. The commercial use, by any person, of residential property for hostel, hotel, inn, lodging,
motel, resort or other transient lodging uses where the term of occupancy, possession or
tenancy of the property by the person entitled to such occupancy, possession or tenancy for a
term of thirty consecutive days or less.
B. For the purposes of this section, "remuneration" means compensation, money, rent, or
other bargained for consideration given in return for occupancy, possession or use of real
property. (Ord. 07-09, 2007)
p:\planning department\2014\correspondence\p1-14-060 pc arches b&b decision.docx
AGENDA
Page 48 of 176
MOAB CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
:: MINUTES :: SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 ::
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Staff:
Public Members:
Kelly Thornton, Jeanette Kopell, Wayne Hoskisson,
Laura Uhle, Joe Downard
Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Zoning Administrator/Planning Assistant Sommar
Johnson
5
The Moab City Planning Commission held its regular meeting on the above date in the Council Chambers of
Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. Planning Commission Chair Kelly Thornton
called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
1. Planning Commission Workshop — 6:30
Sample Affordable Housing Ordinances
Planning Commission members held a general discussion about affordable housing. Commissioners Thornton and
Kopell gave a recap of the Tuesday night City Council meeting. Commission Chair Thornton wanted to put
together a timeline to develop the four points that were discussed with the City Council. The four points were:
• Community Development Corporation
• Inclusionary Housing
• Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
• Linkage Fees
Commission Chair Thornton stated that whether or not City Council adopts the Temporary Land Use Regulation
it was her intent to still develop a timeline for creating the ordinances using these affordable housing tools with an
initial emphasis on linkage fees.
1. Citizens to be Heard
There were no citizens to be heard.
2. Action Item
Approval of Minutes: August 28, 2014
Commissioner Kopell moved to approve the minutes for August 28, 2014 as written. Commissioner Hoskisson
seconded the motion. There was a brief discussion about the vote on Ordinance 2014-06 and it was determined to
be accurate. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
3. Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast to be Located in the R-2 Zone at 100 Arches Drive
Commission Chair Thornton opened the public hearing at 7:04 pm.
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 49 of 176
Page 1 of 8
Applicants Jeramey and Mary McElhaney gave a presentation regarding their application. Mr. McElhaney stated
that he and Mary are the property owners and asked the Commission if they had any questions. He stated that he
drew the plat and said he can answer questions if they have them. Mr. McElhaney stated that he would like to give
the Commission some of the reasons why they decided to do this. He said that he was born in Moab and has
owned a construction company in Moab for about 12 years. He said he met his wife in 1996 and they were
married in 1997 and that he imported her from Carbon County. He stated that she has operated an in -home
daycare on the lot immediately to the right [southeast] in a home that he built a few years ago. Mr. McElhaney
said two years and six days ago was a turning point and on September 5, 2012 he had a construction related
accident where he broke his right wrist, elbow and hip and it was kind of a big deal because he is one of the
contractor's that actually does the work himself. He stated that because of that he has noticed in the past two years
that a lot of the things he was able to do in the past he is not able to do any longer. He said all of the doctors have
told him that two years is the cutoff and he should be where he is going to be in two years and if you're not then
it's as good as it is going to get. He stated the business that he has been running and working in for the last dozen
years is shortly becoming not an option for him anymore. He said where they have this vacant lot next to their
home they were trying to come up with something they could do and he would be able to do it and he said he is
sure everyone knows it is very difficult to earn an income in Moab. He stated they were trying to replace that
income and as stated earlier an in -home daycare cannot operate in the same home as a bed and breakfast. Mr.
McElhaney said some of the steps they have taken during the design process to help protect the privacy and the
neighborhood and the first is the layout of the buildings on the lot. He stated at the top of the lot is a hillside and
the lot is about 50 or 60 feet above in elevation than the home below it. He stated the rest of the neighborhood
will be mostly shielded by their home. He said the home will be far enough forward on the lot that it doesn't
create any unnecessary noise for the homeowners behind it, below the hillside. He stated the other side of the
property is insulated with a 20 foot utility easement and a 20 foot access easement for an adjacent piece of
property. He stated he has been working with the Planning Depaitment for about two months on the planning and
design stages of this and with their help they have taken steps to shield the parking area so it looks more like a
residential area. He said they don't want it to look like a parking lot. Commission Chair Thornton asked what the
shield would look like and Mr. McElhaney said it would be either landscaping or a fence, something that would
conform to the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. He stated that the property line on the left-hand side of the
map there is a six foot tall wooden fence and currently between his home and this lot there is nothing but he is
building a cement retaining wall curb and on the other side of their property there is a six foot tall retaining wall.
Mr. McElhaney stated that was one of the homes he built and the City required him to retain every bit of water
that fell on that lot so he retained all that water. He stated that the home he currently owns he retains all that water
and when he built his current home, all of the extra dirt he took out flattened the lot and bowled it a little bit so it
is actually trapping all of the water that falls on that lot or the ones that happen to get on it from above. Mr.
McElhaney said one of the concerns was that there was a driveway in the front and they don't want all of that
water to drain onto Arches Drive so where you initially have to come up on the curb will drain to Arches Drive
but from that point where the parking spaces are is going to run downhill toward the right-hand side of that
property to an area that is labeled gravel and it will all drain in to that area to the bottom of the house/garage/shop.
He stated the gravel area next to and behind the shop is going to retain all that water off the cement area. He stated
everything else on the lot is going to be landscaping. He stated eventually he would like to have a Japanese tea
garden with pathways and gazebos in the great big open area to the top of the lot but did not want to commit to
that until he knew the costs. Mr. McElhaney said in reading some of the public comments that he has heard from
his neighbors it seems to be traffic is their primary concern. He stated currently their in -home child care business
is licensed for up to 16 children at a time which means they can have a vehicle pass 32 times each day. He stated
with five rentable units in their bed and breakfast each occupant could come and go three times each day and still
generate less traffic than is currently allowed. He stated they also recently counted the neighbors coming and
going during one 8 am to 5 pm hour period and that individual came and went 17 times which is 34 trips up and
down that road. He said on an average day in the peak season from March to October they have between five and
ten vehicles that come and turn around in the cul-de-sac and he's not really sure if they are looking for the view or
if they are lost looking for the Slickrock Bike Trail and he is not really sure why they come up but they just come
up and turn around and leave. Mr. McElhaney stated Arches Drive is a cul-de-sac and there is kind of a bend in it
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 50 of 176
Page 2 of 8
and right at that bend there is a sign that says "not a through street" and that sign was put up at the request of
Mary because of the daycare. He stated the second concern that he has noticed that is coming out strongly has
been parking. He said currently other than their driveway, and he means everyone in the neighborhood, there is no
off-street parking on Arches Drive. He stated their bed and breakfast will have garage parking for every vehicle
they own. He said currently they have a two -car garage and they have five vehicles and three motorcycles so it is
not adequate for parking. He said other than their driveways there is no off-street parking. He stated their bed and
breakfast will have garage parking for every vehicle they own as well as up to seven guest parking places. He said
there are five there and there is actually room for two more and up to six trailers depending on their size. He said
he is not anticipating trailers coming up there but on the chance that they do there is going to be a place for them
to be and not be on the street. Commission Chair Thornton questioned where Mr. McElhaney anticipated putting
those trailers and Mr. McElhaney indicated (on the map) where they could be placed. He stated they would be
back-to-back and lined up. Commission Chair Thornton asked if they would be accessed off of Arches Drive. Mr.
McElhaney said that they would have to be accessed from Arches Drive because the only access to the property is
Arches Drive. Commission Chair Thornton asked if they would pull in and park and Mr. McElhaney confirmed
that was the case. Mr. McElhaney stated he has seen it in the middle of the day when things are happening in the
cul-de-sac is pretty clogged and he is trying to alleviate that problem for not just himself but for his neighbors as
well. Mr. McElhaney said that as Jeff [Reinhart] stated about the daycare continuing there has been concerns and
he is not sure why or where it was coming from but that they were going to have a daycare in a bed and breakfast
or operate the daycare out of the next door home and he is not sure where that idea came from and with that stated
an in -home daycare has to be your primary residence and a bed and breakfast has to be your primary residence
and they can't have both. He stated once this becomes operational the daycare will have to close by law. Mr.
McElhaney stated he has seen a comment on lighting and as part of the proposed resolution it states all lighting
shall be downward directed and full -cutoff [inaudible] as required in Moab Municipal Code Section 17.09.660, H,
Lighting Plan, so he thinks that pretty much speaks for itself and they are going to require him to shield the
lighting regardless of what he builds there. Commission Chair Thornton asked Planning Director Reinhart if
everything up there was shielded for lighting and Mr. McElhaney and Planning Director Reinhart stated that none
of the lighting up there is shielded and Mr. McElhaney stated it was not currently shielded but this particular
home would. Mr. McElhaney stated he heard some comments that there shouldn't be any sort of commercial
building whatsoever in a residential zone in Moab. He stated there are currently six bed and breakfasts inside
Moab city limits. He stated there zoning for one of them was residential -commercial which is commercial, one of
them is in RA1 which is residential -agricultural, two of them are in the R2 zone which is where this one is
proposed and two of them are in the R3 zone. He said he had seen a comment too that said something about who
was going to stay there and it alludes to sex offenders or whatever and he was not sure what they were trying to
accomplish with that comment. He said he looked to see who actually stays at bed and breakfasts nationwide and
Michigan State University did a study nationwide for a profile of who stays at a bed and breakfast. He said the
profile of a bed and breakfast guest confirms the widely held impression that this is a middle-aged, well-educated,
high -income professional market. He stated on the last reported bed and breakfast trip comprised couples, man
and wife, two-thirds of travel parties, 82% of those sampled were married and about half have children living at
home. He said the average age of a travel party is 40 years old with 60% under that age. He stated that this
indicates that many bed and breakfast guests are at a mid -point in the traditional family cycle when raising
children is a primary activity. He stated newlyweds and empty -nesters account for a smaller portion and those
older than 59 years old is about 9%. He said education levels are high with the largest response category being
completion of a college degree. He said in addition another one-third had some graduate school or an advanced
degree. He said it falls to the occupational profiles dominated by professionals and managers. He said several
categories such as business, health, education, and science are large enough for bed and breakfasts to consider
promotion aimed specifically at these segments of the population. He said this isn't going to be the yahoo party
animal crowd. He said these are 40 year old professionals and that's who stays at a bed and breakfast. Mr.
McElhaney stated the rooms that they are proposing, four of the rooms have a single king-sized bed and they
decided to have one of the rooms have two queen -sized beds on the off chance that say he was traveling with his
father or his brother and he would rather have his own bed. He said he tried to see who stayed there and he knew
this going in but he wanted the documentation. He said he had a question on adverse affection on property values
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 51 of 176
Page 3 of 8
with the bed and breakfast in the neighborhood. He stated the lot that he is proposing this one is the largest single
lot in the entire Arches subdivision at 0.57 acres so it is well over half an acre. He said the proposed home and
bed and breakfast will be the largest home in the subdivision but there are currently three homes of comparable
size and construction currently in the subdivision. He said it will be a custom home with tremendous curb appeal
and all real estate studies indicate that building out a subdivision actually increases surrounding property values
instead of lowering them. He stated that he is actually going to build this anyway, the exact same footprint,
regardless of bed and breakfast approval. He said it will not alter what he builds, it would not have rentable rooms
but it will be the exact same footprint, so basically what he is doing is building a home but what he is asking is if
they can also incorporate a bed and breakfast into that home. Mr. McElhaney stated that was the end of his
presentation and reserved the right to address any questions or concerns that might be brought up in the public
hearing. Commission Chair Thornton said that she would like if a Planning Commission member has a question
based on public comment then they will address that to him. She stated she did not want to get into a situation
where he responds and someone else responds and she wants to keep it civil.
Tim Noonan stated that he lived at the corner of Hillside and Rosetree. He said this property is up above his home
directly. He said there is a substantial slope, more than fifteen degrees, going to the west and said he has a huge
concern. Mr. Noonan stated a man should be able to build a nice home and a bed and breakfast or business is
understandable but his concern is drainage. He stated there is a large hill and a lot of water runs down it. He
questioned if anyone had seen the corner and stated that he is very familiar with the layout of the land because he
lives there and he is sure Jeramey is familiar with it too. He stated if all the water now lands on that lot, the largest
lot in the subdivision at 0.57 acres, concrete and roofing will add additional water. He stated his largest point is
there is another land owner and a whole bunch of water comes on to Jeramey's property and the water then runs
right toward his property. He said there is a potential problem, to say the least. Mr. Noonan stated that Jeramey
referenced curbing at the edge of the concrete and/or asphalt driveway which would be at the end closest to the
cul-de-sac in front of the nice home. Mr. Noonan stated years ago curbing was put there by the City and that's a
concern about how much water runs across that property. Mr. Noonan provided the Commission with
photographs and requested the Commission view them. Mr. Noonan stated that he does not like Jeramey one bit.
He stated when Jeramey bought that property from Steve Patterson out of Telluride previously the City had put a
line of bales so that the water would not go down into his property. He said the City also put a line of bales at the
back of end of the property and those bales still exist and he does not like Jeramey one bit for removing those
bales as he was building his beautiful home, his present residence right next door. Mr. Noonan stated the structure
is substantial from the letter he received. Commission Chair Thornton clarified that any property owner within
300 feet of the proposed project receive in the mail a notice about the public hearing and that comes from the
City. Mr. Noonan stated again that he fully understands someone having the desire for their beautiful castle dream
home but drainage is his concern because he is directly below the bed and breakfast and his home could be
inundated flood runoff. Mr. Noonan requested someone from public works to watch the drainage. He stated he
has lived there for fifteen years now and he has seen every storm event. He stated there has not been a major event
for a while but they are so local that one mile can dump and a couple miles away it can't. He stated some good
examples were the Horse Thief trail getting washed out and another example would be by Arches a couple years
ago and another example would be out by Blue Hill a few years ago. He said if an event were to occur there as it
presently runs off it is a concern of his. He stated he has attempted to speak with this a couple times and didn't get
very far. He stated that drainage was his concern and asked that the minutes reflect that hugely. He stated there is
a power pole in the back corner and that is where it comes from. He stated he is sure the present owners, Jeramey
and Mary, are very familiar with the drainage that occurs and runs right through in an approximate gulley location
and it's a big deal. He said water has entered off of this property in the past, a lot of water in to his back yard and
that's why the pictures of the piece of city equipment and the city and those guys in 1999 put a row of bales
across but there was an absentee owner and he didn't care that they were there and he was just holding on to want
to sell it someday but that was an assumption on Mr. Noonan's part. He stated it is a beautiful lot that's going to
get built on with wonderful plans. Mr. Noonan stated drainage, drainage, drainage, drainage was his concern. He
said to speak to someone in Public Works who has seen what went on out there. He said in 1999, 2000, 2001 and
2003 those were huge events that were of concern. He said it hasn't rained like that since but it could easily
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 52 of 176
Page 4 of 8
happen again. He said the curbing needs to be tall so that it actually does slow [the water]. He stated that gravel
will not retain all the water that comes from the other property owner let alone what is additionally going to run
off.
Bonnie Carson stated that she lives at 105 Arches and has lived there since June 2008. She stated they bought
their property about the time that Jeramey and Mary moved in to their house. She stated they were unaware that
there was going to be a daycare center when they closed so it was a surprise to them that there was such a
commercial establishment next door although she stated she was not here to discuss the daycare center, she was
here to discuss the bed and breakfast. She stated they had been hoping when they moved in to be able to live on a
peaceful street, dead-end street, cul-de-sac and eventually retire here but they are still working. She stated those
dreams were quickly put to bed and she thinks by the description of the proposed bed and breakfast, it sounds like
a mini hotel and even if the daycare center is closed, and it's not clear to her still without a citation that it could be
closed or would have to be closed, she thinks the issues they've encountered on their street would continue. She
stated all they had to deal with in preparing remarks for this hearing was the mailing that they got which was
rather vague so some of her prepared remarks have actually been answered by Mary and Jeramey. She stated she
is still unclear on some issues. Mrs. Carson stated the proposal they received in the mail led off with the bed and
breakfast being a solution to the problem of insufficient parking in the city of Moab and she fails to see how a bed
and breakfast could sufficiently address lack of parking in the city of Moab and she stated that was confusing. She
said it is also confusing to her that they will still be in possession of two residences at the end of Arches Drive and
said whereas their primary residence may be the new dwelling that they are proposing to construct but it is not
clear to her that the daycare center would necessarily be precluded from operation because it is a secondary
dwelling. She stated unless that prohibition is tied to ownership, she fails to see where one would have to be
sacrificed for another. Commission Chair Thornton asked Mrs. Carson if she was within 300 feet of the property
to clarify what information she was referring to Planning Director Reinhart stated that Mrs. Carson was referring
to the narrative that was submitted by the applicant that was included in the notice sent out by the City. Mrs.
Carson stated the information was extremely unclear but her point was that she wasn't sure that it was necessarily
precluded to have two businesses there. Mrs. Carson stated the letter that she got said that Jeramey had already
constructed two houses in the Arches subdivision, that would be her house and his house next door, and that the
houses are connected. She stated she was not sure what that means but her house is not connected to the house
next door that is being used as a daycare at the moment. She said they are a distinct house and they are in no way
connected with the proposal for the bed and breakfast and don't want to be. She stated that Jeramey had
mentioned that he had talked to his neighbors about his plans and is aware of the concern of the neighbors. She
stated they are his next door neighbor and they do spend time in the summer away from that house because it is so
noisy and there are so many kids there. She said there was no attempt to call them or reach them to solicit any
kind of concerns that they may have and they have plenty. She stated the contention that their property values will
increase she is not sure where that comes from. She stated their house has been off and on the market since
shortly after they moved in in 2008 and it has not sold. She thinks it is obvious to everyone who goes by that it is
used as a daycare center and it is her opinion that people in that price range don't want to move into the
community possibly because of the price and move into a house that has been used as a daycare. She stated she
thinks they are going to be having those two houses there which sets up the potential for retaining two businesses.
Mrs. Carson stated they bought their house because they thought the area was going to be quiet and she objects to
a bed and breakfast specifically for the following reasons: noise and traffic will be more intolerable because the
traffic will be coming and going out of business hours, so to speak, because people will be out playing all day and
then will come back at night and whereas the daycare you know they come and go around school hours so that's
daylight and that's reasonable but she thinks with a bed and breakfast the situation will be flip-flopped. She stated
speeding has been a real issue. She stated her husband, Scott, who has submitted a letter has had to go out and talk
to the parents and actually stop them in the street and ask them to please slow down because there is a speed limit
sign there, you can see it but it doesn't matter because people are going to disregard it anyway but they zoom up
and down the dead-end street. She stated they've thought about asking for speed bumps but talked to some other
neighbors who were not in favor of that so out of respect for them they did not come to the city for a speed bump.
She said she fails to see why bed and breakfast people would be any different with respect to speed limits She
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 53 of 176
Page 5 of 8
said we've got garages underneath the proposed dwelling for newlyweds and 40-50 year olds and said that doesn't
make sense either. She said she knows Jeramey is connected with the Red Rockers and she thinks the Red
Rockers are great. She said her first dash plaque she got in 1988 and she has seven of them however she knows
what it is like to mess up your vehicle on a trail and have to work on them at night to get out the next day but the
type of people that are being described for this bed and breakfast are not the kind of people that will necessarily
be there. She stated a national survey does not reflect the type of recreation hot spot that Moab is and that's not
the kind of people you're going to get all the time and that's what she is concerned about. She said she is
concerned about traffic and she is concerned about speeding, she is concerned about noise and she is concerned
about lighting. She stated that she has an 8" telescope that she has not been able to take out of her house because
there is a street light in front of her house. She thinks to have more lighting would just be totally unacceptable and
would destroy the night sky. She stated that she sees UTV's and Jeeps being unloaded from these trailers in
addition to the vehicles that tow them and she foresees more parking problems than have been presented here and
are likely to occur. Mrs. Carson stated noise that she is still working, she works hard, and they need to sleep at
night. She said she is not going to hesitate to call the police any time that there is noise or loud partying that she
can hear in her house next door. Mrs. Carson said to sum up because she knows there are other people, she
sympathizes with Jeramey's physical condition; we all have physical conditions. She stated she has had to
reinvent herself several times. She has been back to school and has three degrees. She said she is an
environmental engineer is her most recent degree and she can agree with the previous comment because she's had
to do stormwater assessments on [inaudible] bases all across the nation. She stated that she knows what it is like
to have expanses of concrete and how they direct water. She said they've seen the issues with the water that was
mentioned in the previous comment and she can certainly agree that without strong intervention there will be
definite problems downhill. Mrs. Carson said she has been coming to Moab since 1972. Her first Jeep Safari was
in 1988 and she feels fortunate enough to finally live and work here and she hopes to retire here and she hopes to
retire on Arches Drive. She encouraged the Planning Commission to adhere to the Moab City Code 17.71.030 and
she is confused by the agenda number 3 that says that there will be a resolution as a result of this meeting
conditionally recommending approval and asked to have it explained. Planning Director Reinhart informed her
that resolutions are always written in the positive and that it was up to the Commission to vote them up or vote
them down. Mrs. Carson clarified that they were automatically entered as positive and Planning Director Reinhart
confirmed that was the case. Mrs. Carson accepted Planning Director Reinhart's explanation and thanked the
Commission for their time.
Ryan Barnum stated with the daycare you have some traffic down the street already and with the electrical
business you have tractor trailer traffic making deliveries and he wanted to suggest making the whole street R-3 if
the Commission were going to approve this bed and breakfast and maybe giving everybody else the opportunity
that Jeramey would have.
Glen Wanczyk stated that he lived at 687 Hillside Drive just below the proposed new building and he said that
everything he wanted to say has been covered. He stated the water is a real problem but it has already been
covered. He said the potential increase for noise and lighting and traffic has already been covered. He stated the
building plan looks great but it doesn't look like it is going to lend itself to families like the study sort of said it
might with single bedroom units but it looks like it is only going to be couples so it is not going to be the family
atmosphere that looks like it is proposed there and he said the only thing he would add is why would we want to
put a bed and breakfast in a residential area.
Mike Steele stated that he lived next door to this proposed bed and breakfast. He said his comments would be
very brief for a couple of reasons because a lot of the concerns have already been covered. He stated he believes
the reason that Moab City has an ordinance prohibiting these bed and breakfasts in residential areas speaks for
itself. He stated we have all seen these overnight rentals around town and the impact they have in the
neighborhood and he does not think we really need to talk about that a lot. He feels like there is a reason Moab
City passed this ordinance prohibiting bed and breakfasts in residential zones and he does not want to see one next
door to him
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 54 of 176
Page 6 of 8
Scott Carson stated he and Bonnie own the house at 105 Arches Drive and the Commission has seen his
comments. He wanted to add that they did already lose their neighbors immediately to their other side at 111
Arches as soon as they saw this proposal. He stated they had been leasing and wanting to buy there but they
immediately made an offer on another house in the Moab area and have decided to leave the subdivision just
because of this proposal. He stated he could give copies of their decision so [the Commission] could see for
themselves that here is one couple that have looked at the proposal and said this is not the kind of neighborhood
they want to live in. He said he understands about making money and we all have to make our way in this life and
Jeramey has been a good neighbor and he built their house and it is a good house and there is nothing about that.
He said that he believes the City passed the ordinance, 17.71.030, for a reason to prohibit short-term boarding
facilities in R-2 zones because it definitely changes the character of the neighborhood. He stated this is a mini -
hotel and he does not want a mini -hotel up on Arches Drive. Mr. Carson questioned who the legal owner was of
the property at 100 Arches Drive and Planning Director Reinhart answered that the applicant, Jeramey and Mary
McElhaney, were the owners of the property. Mr. Carson said a mini -hotel is an inappropriate use of a residential
area and there is that ruling in the statutes for a reason. Mr. Carson asked the Commission to uphold the
regulation and not grant the conditional use permit. He stated they have all been through the concerns about noise
and traffic and everything but he would say that what he still can't understand is what is going to happen to the
daycare. He asked what prevents the daycare from continuing to operate next to the bed and breakfast and he said
then they have two businesses at the end of their street and they have kind of been living with two businesses at
the end of their street all these years. He stated Jeramey has parked all his construction vehicles for KTM
Construction on this vacant lot and all the daycare traffic so it is unclear to him why they would want to have
more businesses at the end of a residential street. He said it makes no sense and he doesn't see with as little as
they got, they didn't see where the mitigations to all the negative problems have been clearly minimized. He
stated with five rooms which means you have a couple in each room every night and that could be ten trips every
hour coming and going and he sees it as an inappropriate use of their subdivision and it would probably be a good
reason why they would want to leave Moab if this passes. He said people ask them all the time how is it living
and working in Moab as a professional and he said it is fine until they put a daycare next to you and another
business. He stated if you want your zoning to really protect property values you have to uphold the ordinances
that you have already passed.
Mr. Noonan asked if he could speak again and Commission Chair Thornton asked if he had something different to
say. Commission Chair Thornton asked Mr. Noonan to keep his additional comments to a one minute time limit.
Mr. Noonan stated it is understandable the concerns about the bed and breakfast as others live right next door, too,
but he wanted to reiterate his drainage concern. Mr. Noonan stated if this gets approved conditionally they would
all like to know what those conditions are. He asked if at this meeting it gets stamped approved and they are
wondering this. He said all this slope around this property comes right down toward him and he gets whacked if
drainage is not hugely addressed. Mr. Noonan asked who approves the drainage Planning Director Reinhart
explained that the review at the building permit stage will be done by the Public Works Director and the City
Engineering Department as well as the Building Department. Mr. Noonan said in its present state [inaudible] there
is a potential for water to enter from this direction, a huge potential. He stated he lives right below and he has seen
it. He doesn't think anybody else has and he knows the drainage probably better than anyone involved and this
curb would have to be quite substantial and quite high and the drainage that comes off of it needs to slope to the
north.
Commission Chair Thornton closed the public hearing at 7:50 pm. Commissioner Hoskisson moved to continue
the public hearing. There was no second. Commission Chair Thornton asked Commissioner Hoskisson to explain
his reasons for wanting to continue the public hearing. Commissioner Hoskisson stated that he would like to
continue the public hearing for technical reasons. He stated that he would like more information on the daycare
concerns, and the drainage concerns, and other issues related to the conditional use permit application.
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 55 of 176
Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Hoskisson moved to continue the public hearing to the September 25, 2014 meeting.
Commissioner Kopell seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
4. Action Item — Planning Resolution 11-2014
Recommendation to City Council
A Resolution Conditionally Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and
Breakfast Located on the McElhaney Property at 100 Arches Drive in the R-2 Zone
Commissioner Hoskisson moved to table Planning Resolution 11-2014 until the September 25, 2014 meeting.
Commissioner Kopell seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
5. Action Item — Planning Resolution 12-2014
A Resolution Conditionally Approving a Multi -Use Development Located on the Michaud
Property at 165 West Center Street in the C-2 Commercial Zone
Commissioner Hoskisson moved to adopt Planning Resolution 12-2014 approving the proposed development of
165 West Center Street with a residence, short term rentals, and a commercial artist studio with the condition:
• An additional off-street parking space shall be identified for future parking if the livable basement space
is converted to nightly rental use.
Commissioner Kopell seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
6. Future Agenda Items
Commissioners held a brief discussion regarding future agenda items.
Adjournment
Planning Commission Chair Thornton adjourned the meeting at 8:11 pm.
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 11, 2014
Page 56 of 176
Page 8 of 8
MOAB CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
:: MINUTES :: SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 ::
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Staff:
Public Members:
Kelly Thornton, Jeanette Kopell, Joe Downard
Laura Uhle, Wayne Hoskisson
Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Zoning Administrator/Planning Assistant Sommar
Johnson,
—15
The Moab City Planning Commission held its regular meeting on the above date in the Council Chambers of
Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. Planning Commission Chair Kelly Thornton
called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
1. Planning Commission Workshop — 6:30
Sample Affordable Housing Ordinances
Planning Commission members held a discussion about a proposed schedule for working on affordable housing
issues as well as the General Plan.
1. Citizens to be Heard
There were no citizens to be heard.
2. Action Item
Approval of Minutes: September 11, 2014
Commissioner Kopell moved to approve the minutes for September 11, 2014 as written. Commissioner Downard
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
3. Public Hearing—14-0117 Conditional Use Permit Bed and Breakfast Facility
Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast to be Located in the R-2 Zone at 100 Arches Drive
Applicant Jeramey McElhaney gave a brief presentation to address concerns that were expressed during the
September 11, 2014 public hearing.
Commission Chair Thornton began accepting comments at 7:17 pm.
Kris Hurlburt stated that she has lived here for 12 or 13 years and she is committed to this town. She said she is
active in Search & Rescue and is also a real estate agent. She said she sold the home next to Jeramey and Mary.
She stated she provides her clients with information regarding zoning and what can occur in the neighborhood and
feels her integrity was on the line. She feels that the bed and breakfast would change the neighborhood and
change the quality of life for the residents in the area. She said by allowing this use it changes the lifestyle of the
community.
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 25, 2014
Page 57 of 176
Page 1 of 3
Bonnie Carson stated she lived at 105 Arches Drive. She indicated that several of the comments, both written and
expressed at the previous meeting, came from people on their street. She stated one individual purchased another
home because of the change in the neighborhood. She stated she looked through the City website for a mission
statement for the Planning Commission and also for the City Council and said she couldn't find one. She said
there are a number of concerned residents and the bed and breakfast is not consistent with the existing uses. She
urged the Commission to take it upon themselves to protect the neighborhood and consider the comments of the
people closest to the bed and breakfast. She requested the Commission uphold the R-2 zoning and not recommend
approval to the City Council.
Commission Chair Thornton closed the public hearing at 7:24 pm. Commissioner Chair Thornton explained that
in reviewing applications for conditional use permits, the Commission must determine whether the applicant has
met the conditions or can meet the conditions through mitigation. She explained that while the Commission
understands the concerns of adjacent property, their job is to determine whether the applicant has met the
conditions listed in the specific application.
4. Action Item — Planning Resolution 11-2014
Recommendation to City Council
A Resolution Conditionally Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and
Breakfast Located on the McElhaney Property at 100 Arches Drive in the R-2 Zone
Commissioner Kopell moved to adopt Planning Resolution 11-2014 recommending to Council approval of the
bed and breakfast for the property located at 100 Arches Drive with the conditions that:
1. The bed and breakfast shall be reviewed each year for code compliance.
2. All lighting shall be downward directed and full cutoff as required in MMC section 17.09.660, H,
Lighting Plan.
3. Fencing and/or landscaping shall be used to buffer the parking area and the entrance from the
street.
Prior to a second being made, applicant Jeramey McElhaney stated to ease some of the fears that the daycare and
the bed and breakfast would operate out of the same location, an additional condition could be placed on the
application stating the daycare center would discontinue operations once the bed and breakfast facility was
operational.
Commissioner Kopell amended her motion to include the condition:
4. The daycare center will discontinue operations once the bed and breakfast facility is operational.
Commissioner Downard seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
5. Public Hearing—14-0121 Deer Trail Townhome Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat for Deer Trail Townhome Subdivision Located at 792 W. 400 North in the R-4
Zone
Applicant Scott McFarland and Ben Riley with the Housing Authority of Southeastern Utah made a brief
presentation regarding the application.
Planning Commission Chair Thornton opened the public hearing at 8:10 pm.
Dave Condie stated he lived on Riversands and has owned property in that area since 1986. He stated he was glad
to see the drawings (from the Housing Authority) because that was a concern. He said he was concerned there was
no green space. He stated his neighbor, Nicholas Brown, was concerned that the building would be right against
the property line. He questioned the dedication of right-of-way because it widens then goes back to narrows on
400 North. He stated Jerry McNeely's fence blocks the view [of 400 North] and it is a safety issue. He said
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 25, 2014
Page 58 of 176
Page 2 of 3
Riversands Road is not a legal road and is only about 19 feet wide in some areas. He expressed concern about the
density and said six units were too much and he would prefer to see four units on the property.
Sandy Bastian thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. She stated she owns property west of this of
this property towards the sewer plant. She stated road is weird and the light pole juts out. She said her biggest,
number one concern was drainage. She stated the concern is not just what comes off the developed property but
from the park area. She claimed the City brought down road base and created a berm to keep water out. She said
water comes down and crosses the road and if there is enough water, it goes up the berm and around her property.
She stated in some storms waster shoots out of the storm drains and manholes. She said she was not sure what
Carmichael's put in but it's a one-way street and they cannot park cars in there. She said six units on a half -acre
are too many. She believes 25 foot wide lots are not wide enough for homes. She reiterated her biggest concerns
were density and drainage but drainage was number one.
6. Action Item — Planning Resolution 13-2014
A Resolution Conditionally Approving the Preliminary Plat for the Deer Trail Townhome Subdivision on
Property Located at 792 W. 400 North in the R-4 Zoning District
Commissioner Kopell moved to adopt Planning Resolution 13-2014 conditionally approving the Preliminary Plat
for the Deer Trail Townhome Subdivision with the conditions that:
1. Applicant shall work with City Staff to create an approvable storm water drainage plan.
2. Applicant shall continue to work with City Staff to generate an acceptable design for sanitary
sewer connections.
3. Applicant shall follow the requirements of Rocky Mountain Power in relocation of the power
pole that is currently located within the proposed street right-of-way.
Commissioner Downard seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0 aye.
7. Future Agenda Items
Commissioners held a brief discussion regarding future agenda items.
Adjournment
Planning Commission Chair Thornton adjourned the meeting at 8:52 pm.
AGENDA
inning Commission, Minutes
tember 25, 2014
Page 59 of 176
Page 3 of 3
Date: October 7, 2014
To: Moab City Council Members Kyle Bailey, Heila Ershadi, Doug McElhaney, Kristin
Peterson, Gregg Stucki
Re: Public Comment on Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast
at 100 Arches Drive:
My wife Bonnie and I have lived at 105 Arches Drive since 2008. We live immediately adjacent to the
applicant's daycare facility at 95 Arches Drive and would be one house removed from the proposed bed
and breakfast (B&B) at 100 Arches Drive. Our property line would share the cul-de-sac at the end of
Arches Drive with the B&B and two other residences. A 5-unit B&B facility is a small hotel complex
that is expressly prohibited by City Code 17.09.700, which prohibits residential short-term rentals in R-2
zones. We recognize that a conditional use permit could be approved if the applicant demonstrates
compliance with certain specific conditions. We strongly oppose the approval of a bed and breakfast at
100 Arches Drive because issuance of a conditional use permit would violate the following sections of
the Moab City Code; therefore, the proposed B&B could not possibly be in compliance:
1. City Code 17.09.531(9) A.1. The applicant cannot show evidence that impacts from the
B&B to adjacent residential properties and neighborhoods would be minimal.
a. Arches Drive contains 1 lresidential structures, 2 of which are duplexes. Prior to the first meeting
of the planning commission where the proposed B&B was discussed (September 11, 2014), the
commission received oral statements from residents of four residents of Arches Drive and 11
letters from residents of Arches Drive and the 200 South, all of whom would be directly affected
by the B&B and are opposed to granting a conditional use permit for the B&B because of the
amount and timing of the traffic that would result; limited access on a dead-end street; increased
noise from high -density short-term lodgers; and, possibly, all-night lighting. All of these impacts
would be inappropriate for the quiet neighborhood and inconsistent with current residential use.
Four commenters spoke and objected to the B&B at the second meeting of the planning
commission (September 25, 2014). All commenters provided rationale for their objections. The
amount of opposition and concern shown by the Moab residents who would be directly impacted
by the operation of the proposed B&B shows that the impacts of the proposed B&B would be
adverse and would NOT be "minimal," as required by City Code. Because of the planning
commission's decision to arbitrarily dismiss the comments submitted by the residents of Arches
Drive and 200 South, we are appealing to the City Council to recognize that the residents of the
neighborhood are citizens of the City of Moab who have the right to expect their City Council to
uphold current zoning regulations. We extremely opposed to the approval of this B&B
conditional use permit precisely because the impacts would not be minimal. Granting this
exception to City code would effectively turn the end of Arches Drive into the nightly rental
district.
b. City Code 17.09.531(9) B.2. The requirement that all B&Bs must have one off-street
parking space per rental bedroom is insufficient because of the proposed location at
the end of a dead-end street in a cul-de-sac. The City Council should note that Moab is
marketed as an "adventure" designation. You need only to look at www.discovermoab.com to
1
AGENDA
Page 60 of 176
conclude that the profile of the "typical" B&B lodger (age 55-65) does not correspond to the
active hiker, climber, runner, or biker who journeys to Moab, unless traveling with off -road
vehicles that are often trailered in.
The B&B proposal includes five lodging units. The B&B application originally proposed 5
parking spaces, which was increased to 7 spaces by a revised application. Each parking space
would have dimensions of 20 feet by 9 feet and would, therefore, be able to accommodate one
vehicle, but no trailers. According to the B&B plans, trailers, all -terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility -
terrain vehicles (UTVs), or trailered jeeps would be parked in a corridor adjacent to the western
property boundary with space sufficient for only 2 trailers. It is clear that the cul-de-sac would be
used as a turn -around area, at a minimum, and would be used for trailer or vehicle parking if
needed. Use of the cul-de-sac as a turn -around area and possibly a parking area would directly
interfere with our ability to park our vehicles along the perimeter of the cul-de-sac along our
property boundary. An inability to park our own or our guest's vehicles along our property
boundary is not a "minimal" impact.
2. City Code 17.09.531(9) B.1. The B&B will unduly increase local traffic in the
immediate neighborhood. The B&B would be constructed at the cul-de-sac at the end of Arches
Drive. All B&B traffic for the five distinct accommodations would travel the entire length of this
street. According to Federal Highway Administration data (http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf), the
average driver in a household generates five vehicle round trips per day. Assuming each household
has two licensed drivers and two vehicles, the residents of Arches Drive currently generate
approximately 130 round trips per day (13x2x5=130). Assuming two persons in each B&B room,
each with a vehicle, five rooms could generate an additional 50 roundtrips per day, or an increase of
38% roundtrips per day from short-term lodgers alone, all along the entire length of Arches Drive.
Additional traffic would be generated by persons who service the B&B and by deliveries. Traffic that
would result from short-term lodging would occur at all hours of the day and night, unlike the current
daycare traffic which typically occurs during morning and evening hours (not randomly all day) and
no weekend traffic. The timing of traffic generated by persons lodging at the B&B cannot be
anticipated and would occur at all hours and throughout the weekend. The amount of increased
increase traffic that would occur at any time, day or night, on a dead-end street cannot be considered
anything else but an undue increase in local traffic.
The City Council should not consider traffic generated by the daycare currently operating at 95
Arches as "normal" traffic. Traffic generated by the daycare, the approval of which was granted
without a public hearing, has had a large and undue impact on the neighborhood, and should not be
considered a benchmark. During the day, when daycare drop-offs and pickups do not typically occur,
Arches Drive is quiet. At other times, we have had approach the daycare users to caution them to
slow down because they drive at high speeds to/from work. Vehicles exceeding the speed limit
present a danger to residents along Arches Drive when we enter/exit our driveway, when performing
yard work, or when parking on the street. We currently live at 105 Arches Drive approximately 8
months of the year. We made the decision to work away from our home during the summer because
of the increased traffic and noise resulting from the operation of the daycare operation next to our
home during the months when school is not in session. The undue increase in speeding traffic that
would result from B&B lodgers, who do not live in Moab and would not have a vested interest in
2
AGENDA
Page 61 of 176
maintaining good relations with residents, would result in increased danger to residents of Arches
Drive and 200 South.
Our retired neighbors at 111 Arches Drive (6 years at that address; 3 houses away from the proposed
B&B), who were already disturbed by the traffic from the daycare operation, decided to leave Arches
Drive and have purchased a home elsewhere in Moab area but outside of the city as soon as they were
provided notice of the proposed B&B. Documentation of their decision was received in writing by
the planning commission but was ignored, as were the 11 comments letters it received opposing the
B&B.
3. City Code 17.74.080. Operation of an ATV or OHV on Arches Drive would violate this
city ordinance, which limits noise to 65 dBA where measured at a distance of at least
twenty-five feet from the source of a device upon public property or within the public
right-of-way or twenty-five feet from the property line if upon private property. Arches
Drive is often mistaken as an access to Sand Flats. There is no reason to expect that B&B lodgers
would not drive their off -road vehicles from the proposed B&B to Sand Flats. According to the city
code, a measurement of 65 decibels is considered to be excessive and unusually loud. A noise level
of 65dBA lies approximately halfway between the noise of a normal conversation between two
people separated by 3 feet and the noise of a vacuum cleaner at 3 feet. According to a noise study
conducted for the State of California
(http: //ohv.parks. ca. gov/pages/ 1140/files/ca%20ohv%20noise%20report%20wr%2004-31-06.pdf),
the average noise level generated by an ATV at 50 feet ranges from 75 to 80 dBA. Therefore,
operation of a typical ATV or UTV on Arches Drive would clearly violate this city ordinance. The
City Council should note that we do not object to occasional use of licensed ATVs or UTVs or
motorcycles by our neighbors; however, routine use of licensed ATVs or UTVs by occupants of a
B&B driving the entire length of Arches Drive and through neighborhood streets is totally
unacceptable. Noise of that level is a nuisance that would result in much more than "minimal"
impacts to residents of Arches Drive in addition to violating the city code.
In conclusion, we strongly urge the City Council to overturn the planning commission's approval of the
conditional use permit for the B&B at 100 Arches Drive and deny the application. Although conditional
use permits have been issued in other residential areas in the City of Moab, Arches Drive already has
access and traffic problems because it is a dead-end street. The privacy and peacefulness afforded by
dead-end street that attracted us to buy a home on this street in the first place was definitely compromised
with the operation of the daycare, which began operation shortly after we bought our house without our
knowledge. We would not have bought 105 Arches Drive if we had known that a day care would be
operating in the adjacent house. We are concerned that selling our house would be made even more
difficult by the operation of the B&B. A well-known Moab realtor stated at the 2nd planning commission
meeting that property values along Arches Drive would decrease if the B&B is approved because many
persons do not want to live in proximity to a commercial establishment that would result in unduly
increased traffic and noise.
Although the B&B applicant said that he and his wife would rely on the B&B as their source of income,
surveys of B&B operators revealed a national trend that 55% of owners surveyed depend on additional
outside income, particularly if the B&B is a small scale business, such as one being proposed. At the
September 25 planning commission hearing, the applicant stated that he could operate a daycare facility
3
AGENDA
Page 62 of 176
for eight children or less without receiving approval from the City of Moab. The applicant's comment
suggests that a reduced scale daycare facility could operate with the B&B, if approved. Regardless of the
veracity of the claim, we think that the impacts of a B&B to us and the neighborhood in general would
be far worse than the current day care operation and would totally destroy the attractive qualities the
unique location of Arches Drive held for us. A B&B at 100 Arches Drive would not and could not be
compatible with adjacent existing uses, would result in disproportionate adverse impacts to our quality
of life that cannot be mitigated for the reasons previously described, and, therefore, would violate the
conditions of the Moab City Code. As residents of the City of Moab who had hoped to enjoy retirement
here, we appeal to the City Council to reject the conditional use permit for the B&B at Arches Drive
and retain this neighborhood as one suitable for peaceful living, rather sacrifice it as another
commercial zone that would benefit no one except the applicant.
Sincerely,
Scott and Bonnie Carson
105 Arches Drive
Moab, Utah 84532
4
AGENDA
Page 63 of 176
10/16/2014 B&B in Walker neighborhood - Google Groups
Google Groups
B&B in Walker neighborhood
Cheryl Decker <decker.cheryl@gmail.com>
Posted in group: City Council
Dear Moab City Council,
Oct 14, 2014 3:34 PM
I am very opposed to a Bed and Breakfast operating at the end of a quiet dead end street in the
Walker neighborhood. While I am aware that B&Bs are permitted in the R2 zone, I do not think that
the impacts of tourist vehicular traffic --vs. daycare traffic-- have been fully considered. My main
concerns:
A) Increased hours of traffic: Traffic to and from the facility will not be restricted to business hours as
it is with a day care center.
B) Increased noise: UTV/ATV recreational traffic will likely increase thereby increasing noise pollution-
-during business and all other hours --in an otherwise very quiet neighborhood.
C) Safety: People on vacation do not pay as much attention to children and pets in the streets as local
residents, especially those that patronize a day care center. I recognize that this is an observation
and not hard data, but currently the few times I see ATV/UTVs on Walker St, the drivers are
generally sightseeing and not paying attention to speed limits nor children and dogs.
Please keep these concerns in mind when discussing the permit approval.
Thank you,
Cheryl Decker
220 Walker st
AGENDA Page 64 of 176
h Lps.uyiuups.yuuyie.Gom/a/moabcity.org/forum/print/msg/city-council/OadTgl3Ovg0/BJgMQa2RvwcJ 1/1
September 16, 2014
Moab Planning Commission
Moab City Planning Department
Hi Jeff,
I was not prepared to make comments at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding the Bed
and Breakfast application by Mr. Jeramey McElhaney and his wife, Mary.
I owned a Bed and Breakfast for several years in Castle Valley. As a Realtor with Arches Realty, I
have participated in several transactions with other bed and breakfast facilities both in the County
and in the city limits. I am presenting my comments as a private citizen and not at the request of
any parties who attended the previous meeting, including the McElhaneys'.
My comments on the various speakers are as follows:
1. Drainage. I know the area. I agree that the presented concerns about drainage need to be
worked out. I saw that Jeramey and the speaker are working on a solution together. This is
the #1 issue, I think.
2. Parking. I know that parking of vehicles with trailers carrying their 'toys' can be a problem,
and I think Jeramey should restrict the amount and/or size stored on site. I would
recommend that an off -site location be identified over a certain size or number of trailers.
3. Day Care. This is a non -issue. Mary cannot operate both activities.
4. Noise and/or activities. My experience has shown this is also a non -issue. The visitors are
tired and want to relax. If there is a wedding or reception, my experience is that the music
and laughter is not a negative impact on the neighborhood. And always a 10PM cutoff time!
5. Property Value. I totally disagree with the speaker who tried to make the point that values
could drop in a neighborhood with a B&B. Every, I mean every, B&B I have been in a
transaction with, was the cornerstone or anchor for the neighbors. It set the tone and always
was good as or better than the neighbors. They always increased the value.of surrounding
property. I cannot think of a single exception out of over seven transactions.
6. Traffic. This is a non -issue. Traffic should actually drop as pointed out during the exchange.
I would be happy to address specific questions or concerns, if staff would like to contact me.
Page 65 of 176
"
G m I
b y c o o g i e
S o m m a r J o h n s o n <