Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is I'm calling the meeting to order for the planning and zoning commission meeting of Tuesday, October 7. Nancy, can you take the roll call, please?

Mister Hagerty?

Here.

Miss Austin? Here. Mister Montiel?

Here.

Mister Ruttle is not in yet? Mister Adams?

Here.

Mister Rensen is absent. Mister Kaplan?

Here.

Miss Isaro? Here. Chair Martinez is absent. So our vice chair, miss Hupka, is going to be chairing. And I am here. You're here. A quorum is present. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Next is the approval of the minutes from the 08/19/2025 meeting. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes, please?

I'll move to approve.

And a second?

I will second.

Excellent. Nancy, would you take that vote?

Mister Hagerty?

Yes.

Miss Austin? Yes. Mister Montiel?

Yes.

Mister Adam?

Yes.

Mister Kaplan?

Yes.

Miss Cicero? Yes. And vice chair Hupka?

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Alright. Item number three is the public forum. This is an opportunity for the public to address the commission regarding items not on the agenda. Commissioners and staff will not engage in the dialogue or answer questions during this time. I don't see anyone here to speak, so I'm not going to read the rest of that. But, Nancy, do we have anybody online who would like to speak tonight?

Nancy do not but I do want to

state for the record

that Mr. Ruttle has joined the meeting. Nancy Excellent.

Nancy I'm here.

Nancy Welcome. Okay.

Nancy Thank you.

So that brings us to number four, the study session. Who is going to speak for the staff tonight?

Good evening. Jackson Higgins, assistant city attorney. Nice to meet you all. I have what should be a pretty quick one for us tonight, and a lot of this information will come from the Colorado electric vehicle charging model land use code and guidance, and that's found at the Colorado Energy Office website, if anyone needs that information. I'll go over a little background for what this is.

This is house bill twenty four eleven seventy three, and I'll go over what our current code is, and then I'll give our recommendation as well. The Colorado Energy Office, we'll call its CEO, conducted an EV charging permitting study that investigated the key land use permitting barriers to EV charging infrastructure development and potential solutions for reducing identified barriers because Colorado residents use a lot of electric vehicles. That provided a strong foundation for developing this model code. This study was based on input from local governments and charging developers and a review of national best practices. The results of that study indicated that land use standards and permitting processes were a significant barrier for EV charging developers in Colorado.

This is largely because many jurisdictions don't yet have specific standards or processes defined for such projects, being a relatively new expanding project type. So governor Polis signed into law on 05/21/2024, house bill twenty four eleven seventy three. The law requires subject jurisdictions to take one of three compliance actions, including, adopting the model code compliance path. The law directed the CEO to develop the model code document to provide a no cost technical assistance to local governments to help them integrate the model code into their existing land use codes. And again, it was really developed for people who had not yet, developed their own code or their own system.

We'll go over option one first. For option one, subject jurisdictions may adopt an ordinance or resolution to incorporate the same or less restrictive standards and permitting process as those in the model code. The model code provides required and recommended standards and processes for regulating EV charging development and essential information for subject jurisdictions to implement them. The model code includes a broadly applicable set of of objective standards in a transparent and streamlined review process with reasonable flexibility for subject jurisdictions to adapt the standards to fit their community's priorities. It's really just a building block template.

Along with this option comes code adoption support. The CEO would provide an on call consultant to help subject jurisdictions adopt the EV charging model code, including providing review of existing land use codes to identify appropriate locations to integrate model code standards, suggested revised code language, guidance on messaging for the general public, local government staff, and attendance at local government staff and or elected body meetings. They'll also provide staff training where they would provide a training manual and online training to educate permit review staff on how to interpret and apply the EV charging model code standards. The training materials would cover topics like the basics of EV charging projects, the types of EV charging projects there are, and the types of standards and processes required by the model code. So that's option one.

That would be one way to be compliant with this new law. The second option is statutory code adoption. This is for subject jurisdictions who may adopt an ordinance or resolution. It all requires changes to code, and that's why we would require a public hearing as well on top of even if we decide not to adopt new code or the numb the model code. So option two would be to adopt an ordinance resolution establishing the permitting process for an EV charging permit application consistent with permitting standards in CRS thirty one twenty three three sixteen subsection four.

Subject jurisdictions who chose this compliance path, would not receive the training involved with option one. And then finally, and what we're recommending today would be compliance option three, and that's to retain existing permitting process and standards. This is where subject jurisdictions may adopt an ordinance or resolution stating that they do not wish to revise their land use code through either the EV charging model code or the statutory code adoption compliance paths and instead choose to keep their existing EV charging permitting process and review standards. A quick note as well on the draft ordinance, there is an error. It should read CRS section thirty one twenty three three sixteen two a three.

Right now it reads two a two. That's been revised, but just for you to note right now. Our current regulations are laid out in the electrical code, and that's actually found in title eight article d. Inglewood has adopted the national electrical code which is the benchmark for safe electrical design, installation, and inspection. The EMC is up to date.

It includes any modifications or newer versions of the NEC adopted by the Colorado State Electrical Board. EV power stations as called in NEC are addressed in article 625 with in-depth requirements for EV power transfer system construction and installation. Our title 16 incorporates by reference the building codes which includes the NEC requiring that parking areas provide EV charging capabilities in accordance thereto. And you can see EMC title 16 chapter seven five e. So our current process and requirements, all work must be performed as required by the most recently adopted national electrical code.

An electrical permit is required for residential and commercial chargers requiring new wiring, hardwired hardwired into the existing electrical system or involve any modifications beyond using an existing outlet. And for commercial installation of charging stations, a permit is required along with a one line engineered stamped electrical diagram and a basic site plan. In most cases we've seen with our permitting process, residential permits are issued within twenty four hours and commercial permits within thirty six hours. We have a short turnaround, and that's part of the state's goal in implementing, a required permitting process. Specifically, you can see this in our title 16.

We require electrical vehicle parking spaces to be incorporated into the same lot and count as all other required spaces. Spaces shall be located in more remote and lesser priority parking spots to discourage their frequent use by non electric vehicles, and charging facilities shall be treated as a general accessory use and structure subject to the general site and landscape design standards provided they otherwise are compatible with the landscape or other structures on the site. To conclude our recommendation because title 16 provides a sufficient permitting process and we have an effective turnaround and our existing process is rigorous, it ensures proper installation, it's expedited, we recommend that because an additional permitting process using a state model code would be unnecessarily duplicative, We are proposing we adopt the ordinance stating we are opting out of the state's model code. And with that, we'll open for any questions.

Are there any penalties for opting out of the

No. No.

Okay. And the other question I have, is there a requirement to include electrical vehicle charging stations for new apartments or homes or anything along that line?

As as a part of the model code?

Yes.

I am not sure. I can't speak to that. Okay.

Okay. So I have some questions. Yeah. The the I'm sorry. I probably had it a minute ago. The the ordinance you showed us, is this the state ordinance or our ordinance? I'm a little confused.

The one attached that you'll see is our our adopted ordinance.

Okay. So we don't need to change anything if we opt out. Right?

We the only thing we would need to do is amend title 16 to actually include in our code that we are we are opting out. And so that's why we have an ordinance why we have to adopt code even if we're opting out, not changing our code. We have to adopt something saying we're not changing it.

All right. Very good. And then a question about adopting the state model. Would that put us in the same kind of setting a precedent predicament by with the loss of local control as some of the other mandates that the governor has put out for for grant requirements?

It's not attached to any grant requirements. It's actually if if you chose to use the model code, it comes with a lot of leeway, and they would work with the city depending on what the city's specific needs were. That's why as it reads, it looks like it's specifically meant for cities that don't currently have a process.

Okay. Thank

you. Actually, if I can just weigh in on that as well. There there are grant requirements, but opting out doesn't affect the city's or, any ability for grants to be received.

Which I think is different than what it was for the other ones that you're referring to. So I think that's that was your ultimate question.

Yeah. Wanted to sure to everyone that it's not quite the same. But we yeah. We don't have that kind of predicament in in this. Is there any anybody online have questions? Michelle or who is this online?

I have no questions. Thank you for asking.

No, I'm good.

Well, does anybody have any comments? How do you feel? Go ahead. No, I'm sorry.

So title 16 is our land use code. It sounds like and it looks like from looking at things that the actual permitting here is happening under the electrical code. Right? It's part of, like, the building code, not the land use code. I think so I guess my question is, like, would it be better to essentially state that we have less restrictive requirements than the model code rather than saying we're opting out, would there be any benefit to the city?

Because essentially, we don't have land use restrictions on EV charging. So I guess, you know, what's the benefit of saying we opt out versus saying as permitted, we're we have a less restrictive code and therefore we're actually on, like, compliance option one.

That could absolutely be something that we could look at. That would be more like option two. Option one comes with us working directly with the state. And so since we already have code that would be in compliance with the statutory requirements, which I think is what you're saying, we could absolutely look through those, make sure we are in compliance or have less restrictive permitting process, and then take option two instead.

Do do we know it's less restrictive?

I mean, the I think as he's saying, we'd have to go through and confirm. But the way that I understand it is that essentially because we don't have a land use permitting process for this, that would be less restrictive than the requirement to have a land use permitting process. Right? Like, our process is purely building code approval, not land use approval for this.

Well, this represents the third option represents probably the best efficiency, right, of using the title. It preserves autonomy, minimizes disruption the most, you'd say?

Yes.

Can you show the three options on the screen again? Yeah. Of course. Thank you.

Looking I guess the question today is, do we agree with this approach and would we put in a a motion to move that forward to council, I assume?

I've does You

can do

it. So today is just a study session. We still have to notice it like we would do with any other Title 16 amendments before it comes back to you for a public hearing.

Yeah. We're just, seeking a consensus on which option the Commission would like to pursue.

Yeah. Also about option two then, if we were to pursue that, do you anticipate any staff costs, more staff, more expense for the city?

That might be a better question for the chief building official to go through that. But we can get that information and get that back to you all.

Well, I think that that's something that council would ask. I will just tell you, I would be for option three, opt out. It just seems like the the simplest and least least burdensome.

And I might note that we do have we have worked on design guidelines for new EV charging stations. They're not requirements, but they do point people to the right sections of our code. They may become applicable and just give some tips and design, not really rules, but just kind of direction for them.

Do we wanna take a straw poll?

Do real quick question, and, I think you can alluded or maybe I think you did. Brian, can you recall in our parking section of the building I'm sorry, the development code you see, Do we have specific EV requirements or is that we stayed mute to that. I think we can't remember talking about it, I don't remember what we ended

up No. We don't have requirements for, like, a specific number. The the section the ordinance at the back of your packet actually has all the references out of that section of EV parking in our in title 16. And I think what Jackson is explaining is they just he just added one extra note underneath all of what's existing. It all points to the building code.

Yeah. I think we I thought we had something that said, like, that they should be ready for electrical like the had to be or do we not even put that in? Okay. Alright. No. I'm I'll I'll off favor of number three. Yeah.

Okay. What do you how about what do you yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah. Which one would you pick?

I would pick number three opt out as well. Seems like we have everything in place and it's just additional burden on the city staff.

Okay.

Noah?

Yeah. So I'm fine with option three. I I would like to see us consider taking this opportunity to make some other revisions within this 1674 in the municipal code? I think, you know, one, the paragraph that says, you know, EV charging spaces should be in a more remote or lesser priority parking spot to me is not something that we should be necessarily putting a thumb on the scale for. Like, why not put the EV charging spots in the most desirable place so that people with electric cars have a benefit, you know, that, might be, at at the very least, I think we should be silent on it.

And and then I feel like section three where it talks about, you know, subject to general landscape design standards, gets a little into subjectivity here where I feel like what this law is trying to do is to say that essentially this should be a by right kind of use and that any standards need to be clearly objective, which it sounds like we're saying that's what our stand how our standards are applied. So if that's the case, I would rather us not have this kind of language in there that's as, you know, compatible with other landscape design standards because to me that leaves open the possibility of kind of subjectivity entering into this. So I would be fine with option three and making this change to say we're opting out. I would like at the same time to maybe remove some of this other language and just be clearer that this is a by right use without this other stuff.

I agree

with Noah.

So I would be

fine with three, but I like the idea of removing some of that other language later.

Carl?

Are are there any the the three options or is it would it vary between one option or another, whether it's an existing house or a new house or existing apartment or a new apartment. And then also this one ten or or two twenty, two twenty would have to be a little more restricted because of the heat generated by it.

I cannot also speak to that, so I apologize.

What was your question?

The existing house or new housing or existing apartments or new apartments or is one of the options gonna cover all that?

This this really just looks at permitting process. It doesn't make a distinction between what type of development or anything along those lines. It just says, the way I understand this is the state has said you can adopt the state model parking process, create your own process, or opt out of the process. We're opting out because what we have currently is we only require electrical permitting for a new facility.

220. 220 versus one ten. 220 is generates a lot more heat and there's more fire access to, you know, it's a little more dangerous than can it be put in a wood structure garage or whatever?

I I can get you in touch with a building official and she can talk to you about that. This really doesn't go into that much detail.

One one who are you?

I'm Jackson. It's nice to meet you. I'm the new assistant city attorney. So this is the first time you're seeing me. It's nice to meet you.

City assistant the deputy assistant attorney?

Assistant city attorney.

Yes, So so this sorry. This is getting, static. So there's the city attorney, which is which is Tamara Niles, and then I'm the deputy city attorney. I'm Victoria McDermott, and then this is, the assistant city attorney, Jackson Hagan.

Okay. Thank you. How

about online? Stephanie, any questions?

Ms. Yeah, this is Michelle. I think we need to focus in on what we're really trying to do here. And while I understand the comments that Noah made about, maybe changing things, the only change that this what we're trying to look at today is just basically number four and the that that we have opted out. And I think we should stick without that rather than trying to change other things in the code because that's gonna be an entirely much bigger and longer process. So I would just focus in on just let's just approve what the city has written that we're opting out, and that's the only change.

Okay. And so do I have that right as Stefan online?

Yeah. Steven?

Yeah. I like Michelle's approach, so I'll second promotion.

Oh, very good. Alright. If there's nothing else, I think we kinda have that that wrapped up.

I have another question.

Another no. I have something.

I do. So the language is currently in title 16, talks about it as an accessory use. The model code from CEO has language related to both accessory use and primary use. How would a primary use use case get approved under our current process? Like, if somebody wanted to take one of the used car lots and turn it into a site that its primary use was as a commercial charging station, where does that get approved?

So if it sorry. If you're looking at an entire site being redesigned for, like, a EV gas station, if you will, they would have to go through the entire site permit process, review process, because you're developing an entire site now. If you're looking at it just as an accessory use, yeah, it goes through our accessory permitting process, which generally just requires permits associated with it. But if you're doing an entire site, you're looking at site design requirements, landscaping requirements. You also have engineering would get involved in site design. So it's a much bigger process than just an accessory, somebody sticking one on the side of their house or adding some to a commercial parking lot that already exists.

I think Joe's question, there is a process for it if somebody wanted to do that. Okay.

Nobody's ever asked that question, but we we always have a process for pretty much everything. At least we like to think we do. Let me see. And I wanna say, if I recall correctly, we tried to revise the code to allow for that type of use as a primary use as well.

So while you're looking for that, as long as we're still here and ramping, I I don't think it would cause any more issue to look at this. If we're changing the code, we're changing the code. It's gonna open it up regardless. So if there is a time to change it, it is now. Obviously, I don't think that has to necessarily be decided today. I think it would be decided decided in the study session. Or I'm sorry, not in the study session, in the actual hearing. But maybe something if you feel strongly one way or the other. I mean, I don't know that I I think these are wrong terms in here, but are they necessary? Does it feel a little excessive to say that they have to be in a remote or lesser parking area?

Or that's probably the only one. I I think I'd be okay with the other one. So just I think we're opening the code regardless. I don't think it's any different than if we were just adding this line.

Thank you very much.

Nice to meet you. Congratulations on Thank you. Okay. Staff's Choice. Do you have anything? Brian?

The only thing I have is you might have seen Nancy's email from earlier today that many of you have expressed I'll just read it. A few of you expressed interest in updating the CIP prioritization tool, and it looks like the budget team has scheduled a joint meeting with the budget advisory committee and interested PNZ commissioners for Wednesday, November 13 at 05:15PM. More information. I think there should be some more information to follow, but, please hold that date and time open if you are interested in discussing that tool, which I do believe a few of you have mentioned that in the past.

You.

Will that be the only opportunity to discuss that tool?

That is all I know so far, but we can always ask that question, see if there's any any other opportunities. That's the only one that we have had scheduled so far.

Attorney's choice.

Thank you. We don't have anything else for tonight. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner's choice.

Sorry. Brenda, if I could just remind the commission, there will be no meeting. You should have gotten a cancellation of the next meeting, which is in October 20. Just a reminder.

That's right. Your staff, and I should have asked you if you had anything to Don't

worry about it. I have a quick clarification though. You said it's Wednesday, November 13. Wednesday is the twelfth, Thursday is the thirteenth, at least on the calendar.

Thirteenth. So if I said Wednesday, it should have been Thursday.

Okay. So so it's on am I reading this right? Yeah. Thursday's the thirteenth. So it's on Thursday. Okay.

A commissioner's choice. I have something to say tonight, but we'll go down the line. We'll start with Michelle online. Do you have anything?

I do not have anything, but just to, help Nancy out, the cancellation of the PNC meeting is on the twenty first, not the twentieth. So

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I've got nothing.

Stefan, how about you?

I'm good. Thank you.

Hi, Stefan. Carl?

So that cancellation, does that affect our normal meeting? Is that

Yeah. Right?

Yes. That would be your next scheduled meeting.

We don't have anything.

Oh.

Nothing else.

Amy? I don't have anything. Thanks.

Oh,

sorry. An update from city council about the Chick fil A that you guys see here, council meeting on that. They council member Anderson suggested an amendment to remove or suggested to put on the trees on the back on the north side because there were already trees. And they also removed the requirement that there be handicapped outside because it's already handicapped sidewalk outside. But the good news is they did require Chick fil A to maintain the landscape in front of the mural so that it doesn't cover the mural.

So I just wanna let you all know that. And the other thing that you could be paying attention to in city council is the capital budget and how they how they funded that the capital fund this year. What they did and what we were really supposed to do was they just prioritized used the first saying, looks like 18 lines, added in art in public places, and that's what was funded this year. Later on, they did find another 400 ks available. I don't know where that came from.

But they were able to add in neighborhood traffic calming and the little Dry Creek Plaza. But the point I want to make is that the way we did it with going down and picking all the tier one price capital improvements and then just squashing the prices down to fit, that was not regarded by council at all. They did not pay any attention to that because that's not the way that we're budgeting anymore. The act of ranking is how we budget. So that's why I would recommend, if you want to see what they did, I have it right here.

I can leave it out. I also have everything that was left unfunded. So I would encourage everybody to come to that November meeting. And, of course, I was before I knew about this November meeting, I was going to next spring, I'll volunteer to show everybody how to use the form. You know, we can meet in the library. But, yeah, basically, if we want to be considered the active ranking is how we budget. And what we would do is we would pick the first rank. We would pick all our ranks until we reach that. This year, it was 7.5. And then you stop at 7.5.

If we want to make a case for anything below that, then as a group, we could try to do that. But doing it again like we did this year, we would need to all decide to do that together. Otherwise, the ranking is how we budget. I just want that to be clear. And I'll hang on to it so we have it next spring when we go to do this. Thanks. That's all I had.

Just a quick follow on on that. So, we've talked before about the budget and how a lot of the items, like, you know, road maintenance, for example, are are not a single project. And so there's no reason we shouldn't be able to, change the amounts that are allocated to those things and ask city staff to, you know, prioritize within that line what is most important. So I think what that demonstrates to me is that we really do need that additional information. If we just accept that the way we budget is picking lines, we're essentially incentivizing the city staff to maximize their requests so that they can, you know, get so that if they're above the line, they get as much as they possibly can, and then other things get pushed off.

Whereas if we can if we can know a little bit more about what is in a given line item, especially where it's not a clear single project and kind of what the priorities are within that line item, that gives us the flexibility to do the kind of work that we did this time where we're trying to adjust the amounts. So I I'd really like to see that going forward because I I don't think that is it. I I don't think just going down until we hit the maximum number is the right way to do this because a lot of those line items should have flexibility within them, and that's part of what we're weighing in on. The other item I wanted to bring to folks' attention as a civic engagement opportunity. On October 21, Western Sky Bar and Tap Room and Vibrant Englewood will be hosting a beers and ballots event at Western Sky.

We're expecting all of the local city council candidates, at least some of the school board candidates, and also an economist to talk about some of the ballot measures and other things that are on the ballot that are not candidate related. So it's a great opportunity to hear from all the candidates and learn more about the issues before you cast your ballot if you haven't done it by that point. So, again, that's Tuesday, October 21 at 6PM at Western Sky.

Brian, did you have something that

Yeah. I just wanted to provide some additional comments on the Chick fil A BUD, the conditions that council revised on the ADA access or the accessibility comp condition on the sidewalk, staff went out and verified that the existing sidewalk is is compliant, so that we we verified that everything was okay. So the concern from Chick fil A side was that if the conditions existed on the ordinance, they exist on that ordinance in perpetuity until that ordinance is changed. So those conditions can kind of linger out there if there's ever a transaction, things like that. So they had some fear that if these these conditions still existed in the future, they may cause some concern.

So staff verified the accessibility route on the sidewalk. Their plan had been updated to include the trees, so council removed the condition about adding new trees because they already existed. And then I know they I believe they kept the or the condition on the landscape trip strip, but revised it to include language about when new landscaping couldn't be taller than two feet. To give it more of what what Noah was mentioning earlier was a very objective approach because just saying don't cover it or something along those lines could be very considered very subjective from their stance. So they kinda clarified that one for you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. I don't have anything specific other than excited to talk about that budgeting tool because that's the only way that we're able to provide influence. I think that needs to have some additional features in it that can allow us to do that. Or if that's not gonna be the process, then it shouldn't be a p and z process to provide that if there it's not going to be taken into account. So I'm excited about thirteenth. We'll see where it goes.

I don't have anything further.

Okay. That adjourns this meeting. Thank you. Yeah.