Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

uh regular meeting of the planning and zoning commission for January 27th to order. Um this meeting is also being held via Zoom. Dial in at 719-359-4580. Um webinar ID 86380550264. Um, start with the roll call. Commissioner Conton. Commissioner Cowan here. Commissioner Sipperly here. Commissioner Waller here. Commissioner White here. Commissioner Hton here. Commissioner Gin here. We have a quorum.

Okay, that sounds good. Um, okay. [clears throat] Any comments from citizens appearing for items not on the agenda? Okay, I don't see anyone online. Okay, we'll move to the next to the new items. Um, [clears throat] item one is variance 000098 2025 Iron Mountain Hot Springs. There's two variances. Um, one allow four poles from one pole and two. The height of signage allowed 20 ft to extend to 36 to 44t. Um and as we started off I don't know if anyone has any does anyone need to recuse themsel on on a group. Okay see then then let's go on and Jim I guess get us going. [clears throat] Good evening, commissioners. Yes, welcome. Uh this evening, you have a variance application in front of you. It's it is two variances as you mentioned. Uh [clears throat] the applicant is the Iron Mountain Hot Springs. uh located, as you're all aware, in this particular area along the Colorado River between that and uh 6 and 24 considered northwest of the downtown center. Uh the purpose this evening is to to entertain and listen to their variances for uh a sign on their property. And your purpose this evening, you have the ability to approve, approve with conditions or deny, or you can hold the hearing over

uh waiting for more specific information to help you make a decision. Uh this variance also it's worth noting every time we do this uh it's intended to provide relief uh from the requirements of the code where strict application of the code would result in an exceptional practical difficulty or undue hardship preventing use of the land as otherwise uh intended by the code. Uh and and it is not to alleviate inconveniences or financial burdens imposed on land owners. uh the two variances in front of you we have we have them divided as action one and two. Action one the variance is for a allowance to exceed a height maximum of 20 feet which is set in the in the re resort district. They're requesting uh the allowance to go to 47 feet and 2 in. Variance action two is for the allowance for a sign pole sign excuse me to it was four poles instead of just the one as they are intending to erect a historically significant I guess uh visually significant water tower for the hot springs. Uh as I mentioned, I've got these divided into two actions as we typically do. Uh but I and I guess I could mention it later on, but uh the variance request came in as multiple uh arguments within one set. So I haven't broken them out into two. You can use the findings information, the criteria analysis for both of them though. Uh a little bit of background here. In

in 2014 when uh the Iron Mountain Hot Springs was first approved as a development plan, the idea for a an observation tower was part of the plan. A variance was approved for the height that you're close to the height that you're looking at tonight. Uh the signage a similar size. locations are are different, but that that isn't what you're looking at tonight. That will be part of the building permit process. Uh the observation tower aspect is off the table now. Uh and the idea that this approval in 2014 u is active today is not the case. It expired within 3 years of approval as no building permit or sign permit was applied for. These are just for reference uh for later conversation. The three-dimensional sign area is a way uh for us to evaluate signs and to assign a square footage to something that otherwise is difficult to work with. For example, this restaurant where they you have a caped crusader is standing in such a way where you can see that uh image where we use uh a maximum of eight sided polygons to measure this out. So you could see in this case where you might have one uh rectangle here and another set of rectangles that can easily be used to determine square footage. That's how we have seen that in the past. So if obviously as you're going down the road you see the sign but then you see it from a different angle if it is thinner than it is wider in another aspect then you wouldn't anticipate using that for

uh your area examination. And I I would imagine that the applicant does have this on their uh presentation, but simply put, and I won't go into great detail here, but this this area up here is considered the sign face, which is similar to what we've done here, uh as they're wanting to put the sign itself with back lit letters installed on a round, uh barrel at the top. This is an east west elevation. Obviously, if this is uh symmetrical any way you look at it, it would be the same, but that's how we were applying it. I won't go over any of this other than to say because it is in your staff report in your packet that they only meet two of the seven criteria. Uh, one of those is finding that it does have an exceptional uh shape and topography and building configuration. The other is that we don't anticipate it uh harming uh the public in or excuse me uh not violating the the building or fire code requirements and by default not hurting the public. uh reviewing agencies as part of the original approval in 2014. Uh C DOT was uh put into the development uh agreement as a reviewing entity for any sign permit that did come before us in the future. I did review that past the state and they don't have any uh problems with this. It doesn't it's not in conflict with the highway beautifification act of 1965. It is not close enough. they they are talking about things that are right on the right of way. No public comment uh was received for this particular case and in with my contact uh with the applicant have found that

they've met all of the requirements of public noticing. With that in mind, uh the the two action items in front of you this evening, uh one and two both uh are being recommended by staff for denial. And I have included also as seen in your staff report an alternative motion to approve should you decide to. But all of those items would would need to be uh in conformance with your motion. And with that, any questions? [clears throat]

Okay, thanks Jim. Any questions from the [cough and clears throat] from the commission? Miss White. Oh, okay. Um, Commissioner Cowan,

excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Jim. I guess just um going back into seeing what has changed from that previous approval in 14 uh to now. Um, when you look at the two, what has changed, I guess, from from a analytical standpoint, from what you guys looked at, um, the proposal and approved for the first variance versus this one. Yeah. Uh, from what I can tell, well, location, but that's not part of it here. Uh, you're looking at, uh, just the observation use aspect of it. They're not intending it for it to be accessed by the public at all.

Okay. So just the type of use or that ancillary use is the only thing that's different. Okay.

Um I guess I don't have that we don't have that previous variance in front of us or that approval kind of those findings in that but um but to be clear and uh I believe I mentioned it in the staff reported it what if I didn't that's my error and I apologize. uh there was a recommendation of denial from staff at the time for the exact same thing that you're looking at. So the planning commission chose to put aside the recommendation for denial and they approved it.

Okay. I just maybe maybe I missed that where where that was spelled out in here about kind of what the conditions for approval were by the previous commission. I'm not sure. But well, the intention wasn't to put those in there so we could compare and and ch change in charge what it is that we have in front of us tonight. I think the the idea of looking at our staff report and recommendation because so much time has changed the code has changed uh that we look at it on the merits that we have in front of us now.

Okay, great. So I guess just going back so we have seen some code change in that intervening time specific to um perhaps what the previous commission was looking at in their approval of that variance and now what what do you think are or I guess looking at the staff report and the recommendation for denial then versus what you're bringing here. I'm not too sure what uh would have changed in the code that would allow a different decision now. in looking over the minutes for the meeting, there wasn't a whole lot of information that was gleaned from those minutes. Okay. Right. That's it for now. Thanks.

Yeah, if I could just add to that, [clears throat] um Jim is right. You know, we kind of include that information for the historical context of how we got to where we are today. Um but you know this is a new application and you should be looking at this completely separate of any previous approvals um related to the former sign. Um I would say one thing that maybe has changed since that former approval. There was a conversation previously as to um you know could this be considered attached building signage? Um, and you know, that was a structure formally that would allow for the public to to go up the stairs and to utilize that viewing tower. Um, I think again staff still recommended denial at that time. Uh, but we had a very we had a lot of difficulty in trying to get to what do we call this sign? What portion of the sign are we measuring in terms of sign area? Um but it was clear that based on the definitions in the code that are outlined in the staff report that this is not um an occupiable structure. So we cannot consider what you really look at as the advertising piece and piece or portion of this sign um as as allowed attached signage because this is not a structure that can be occupied by the public.

Okay. [clears throat] um, Commissioner White. And so, um, to be clear, now it's just going to be what looks like a big holding tank, but it's just a sign. It's a nonfunctional um, correct structure, right? Individual letter signs is the plan that I've seen. Back lit, so nothing illuminating through the letters unless something's changed. Um, yeah. Do do we have anything like that in Glenwood that you can think of?

Not not that I'm aware of. Um, you know, I mean, that's kind of the difficulty again that we have with this is that it's it's a cool idea. It's a cool sign, right? It's a cool kind of feature. Um, but it's not something that's anticipated in our code, which is why the variance request was necessary. Thank you, Commissioner Gman. The um the 28 foot maximum was in the um his which zone was it? The RE resort zone.

The re is there a maximum in any of the other zones or is it 28 feet for every zone? Uh most of the zones that you'll see that are visited by either higher speeds or more automobiles have 20 foot. The the M1 district uh for example that's that's the one that sees the most uh frontage. So 20 is the maximum for all the zones really.

Is it the maximum for all the zones? Uh without looking at the table I wouldn't be able to confirm that. Uh there are some places where it can go higher, but I I think the idea is that where you have higher speeds and more traffic, a lower sign is the choice so you're not distracting drivers. Okay. And then um why is it only allow one pole?

That's just the definition of what a pole sign was originally created as. And and keeping in mind that whatever is suspended up above, if it can be placed upon one pole does minimize the number of items that are in people's line of sight, too. And did you have a picture of where exactly this was going to go? Uh not a part of tonight's proceedings, but uh are you familiar Yeah. with it? Or if you I do when when I did I'll just let him show you. Perfect. Okay. You good? And

just to clarify, I just took a look at this, Jim. Um, it's 16 feet in some districts in in terms of the maximum height of a freestanding pole sign, 20 feet in the adjacent highway districts like 6 and 82 um like this site is. And then of course you have smaller heights for like your monument signs. Those are max of six feet in height. But those, you know, are usually at the ground level. Okay. [clears throat] Other questions. Okay. Um I have I have one. Um so so if we would um approve this, we need to change all we would have to decide all the nos or yeses. Right.

So could you go through the nos? go through that part of the presentation so we know specifically what those are. And there's five notes, correct? Yeah, there's five notes. But but I would just like to, you know, hear what they are versus brushing over.

Yeah, there's five nos. I just like to go through and five because of the hardship. Like if that if we

I'm asking him to just do that. Yeah, I I I could go through them, but specifically within the staff reported notes that several of these can't be at least in in our estimation applied as a positive or a yes in conformance to this criteria because a hardship had not been established. Uh, one of them is a strict application to the code standards where a variance is sought which would produce undue hardship. Period. Number two, that's that one kind of drives a couple of others. Number three, the applicant did not create the hardship by his or her own actions. Number four, the variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulations for which the variance is sought. Number five, the variance request demonstrates exceptional hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden. And number seven, the variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief to the subject standards of the code. And you can see my language in the staff report to the right there with the finding that shows how it doesn't comply. So you'd have to work.

Yeah. And I and I read through all of that and that I mean it I mean hardship some of it's subjective though, right? I mean I guess that's all that I'm that's all that I'm just kind of tossing out here as we go through. I mean, you're just reading the specific approval criteria without I mean, if if if we would have to go through and change it, we would need to have conversation on those items as I know we've done in the past on certain ones to to to say we have a different opinion of the hardship of what hardship is and hardship is something that then applies to multiple ones. But anyway, I mean that was that was the reason I was asking it other than to just read specifically that

and and I think Jim as part of his presentation in anticipation of that potentially does have um some some findings that would help you go the opposite direction of what staff recommended if you so choose. Okay. Now, now I haven't come up with anything that justifies this alternative motion to approval. This is just how they would be read. You would have to come up with your your own findings, right? Do you have some other stuff you're going to go through on that or should I move forward? I am. Okay. Um, Commissioner Cowan,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, just a quick I'm just asking this here as a kind of a placeholder. Um, but came across the tension in the in the report, Jim, about how do we define this thing? Um, and same Trent, when you're kind of going back and forth between structure or building, um, is this something perhaps not now, but um, in the future we just kind of earmarked that we need to perhaps look at these definitions a little bit. Do you see some utility in that exercise, Trent? I I guess I I don't necessarily really have an opinion based on this specific sign if that was of interest to this body. We'd be happy to to bring that forward.

Are you saying revisit the code? Yeah, I'm I'm just posing some questions here about, you know, just reading this kind of the the tension around some of the definitions if there's opportunity for us to at a later date perhaps or, you know, when it's appropriate to take a look at that. Um, if I could jump in real quick, I don't want to speak for the director, but I we had a healthy conversation with those terms and that's why we brought them in. Not because they're suspect, but because by looking at them more closely, we're a we were able to with confidence direct the applicant applicant to a variance for a poll sign versus a a building

where [clears throat] you would have a sign because it it doesn't meet the parameters for what's allowed for a sign an attached sign. Okay. So, do you believe that the the additions here, these additional definitions are perhaps appropriate handrails to help you get to a more kind of narrowed place?

I believe so. And and and Trent, if if you disagree, let me please speak up. But I I felt like, like I said, our our conversation uh got us to a point where we understood our own code a little bit better because we don't always have a whole number of ex ex well examples or exceptions that we can just roll down the list of and look at and go, "Yep, this one's just like that one."

Okay. Um and then kind of another just kind of attitudinal question about you know as an applicant comes into uh comdev with something like this you know just looking at the strict adherence you know and kind of what that you know what that what that entails you know kind of the lens that things are brought forward in um what's what's that look like as far as discretion for dialogue and kind of resolution finding within comdev within the the discretional stat discussion about a prior to an application form. U it it has a lot to do with fully understand what understanding what it is that the applicant is looking for

and then in terms of what it is that we have to share what we interpret then we look at helping them understand. A number of times uh people have walked away thinking oh no problem I'll just apply for a variance. It's difficult because the definition of hardship in our code uh reads a condition by which the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under existing regulations subject to a showing of proof under the subsection that covers the so I I I think that tightens it and makes it a lot more difficult and and sure some people might say it's ambiguous but the idea that something isn't allowed in the first place by a code section dictates that it was either put in place by not a quorum but a a consensus of a group in the process that brought that previous code up to date in 2018. there were there was somebody a group somebody brought it forward and said this is important let's look at this and if it wasn't important it would have been tossed out potentially uh but for somebody to apply for a variance meeting that hardship really doesn't address a lot of the things that they ultimately think is not under their control and you know when you purchase something sure you didn't create it but that that hardship can be compounded or exacerbated by things that they to agree. Thank you, Commissioner White.

And Jim, oh, sorry, Jim, can you just refresh our memories? How many of these um variance conditions do we need to actually meet to approve the the variance? All seven. All seven. And And when was that procedure put into place? And what was the intent of that? three years ago, I think. Yeah, I was going to say it's been in um some version of this has been in the code as long as I've worked here. Okay. Um and a version of this those uh same five to seven criteria are in every variance criteria in every jurisdiction that I've ever worked in.

Right. And the intent is that that we just don't ambiguously come in here and approve things. It's like it is it's designed it's designed to you know variances by [clears throat] the you know by the very nature or things that are outside of the normal parameters of the code that a community has decided what is important. And so um the criteria is really designed around really getting to the heart of the matter whether and oftentimes it turns on undue hardship whether or not this is a situation that really warrants um a change from the code or not.

Yeah. Um and and so the undue hardship and did you do it to yourself when you bought the property because you knew what the property was and what the rules were um is most often the hardest one to me. And then the other question I have for you, Jim, is um were any sort of and and [snorts] maybe this is a better question for the applicant, but were any sort of alternatives presented uh that do meet the code or is this kind of the only um the only concept that's being presented?

The applicant has chosen to work with the previous approval and is is wishing to move forward with it. Uh so uh nothing else was presented but the applicant and I had a couple of different discussions about what else would be possible, what could fit, what would still meet the intent of what the of what the applicant ultimately wants. Um but nothing was was proposed. A number of ideas were floated. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, one other question I have is um, and I don't know if this is piggybacking on Commissioner Cowan's question, but if when I look at the at the definitions um, poll sign versus building, and I understand, you know, I read through how you said this is a pole sign versus a building when I look at the definitions and that sort of thing, but it's kind of like a a faux um, building kind of thing. I mean it very much looks like a building right

component and and I know but by the strict rules it's not and and I guess I don't know if this is back in 14 and I agree 14 does not matter but if it was if it was a building then would that change some of the you know the heights because I know buildings downtown we've got signs weigh the wicked high and all that kind of stuff but um I'm just kind of tossing that out there.

Sure. it it would meet the expectation of a building if there were a parking area or a street that the building fronted on where the entrance existed. So, and I So, what I'm asking is if if it was a building and let's just say it was a building, then then does that it still needs to have I mean, so I'm not saying what things are criteria for it to be a building and that if it is a building, does that change the variance? Yeah, you bet. nose and that sort of height would still be in question, but the pole structure would not be

because regardless of what the height for the building allowance would be in that district, the sign height is typically separate. And I'm just thinking sign heights on buildings like the Anderson Cooper or whatever that that one's called, you know, the I mean those are pretty darn high kind of thing. Yeah, but that's a bu that's a build that would and and this is what I have in my head, but that's that's a building sign. Is that Well, the building Yeah. Sorry, I think I misspoke. The the building sign could go higher, but there there would be a a maximum that it could go, right? Yeah. Okay. I was just You're thinking

No, no. Well, well, but no, I'm just trying to think through and maybe that was in 14 when it was a building that there was the stairs going up and there were people in there and that's and it kind of looks that way. So anyway, I'm just kind of tossing it out there if it was that that still would that would have been considered a structure still at the time, not not a building because it's not enclosed and not meant for the occupancy of of anyone.

Yeah. But and but we don't know what they'd said back then those days. Okay. Okay. Um any other questions? Okay, Jim. Thank you very much. Um Okay. Now, would the applicant like to speak? [laughter] Have you ever been for a shortage of words? Is this thing sure there'll be good words something?

Okay.

Okay. Okay. Uh my name is uh Bruce Bar with Redhouse Architecture. uh here representing Iron Mountain and Justin Wells and Rachel Sabki are here from Iron Mountain. Um not going to get too far into this because you guys know where it's located. Um I'm assuming you know the history, you know, it's been a hot springs, you know, um commercially in the past, including a signage tower, um which you can see here. Um uh so the previously submitted application and approval was September 30th. It was a September 30th, 2014, uh PNZ meeting. That is the approved tower to the right with a giant oval stuck to it. Two giant ovals stuck to it. Um the uh the this is straight from the I'm gonna I'm going to go to the meeting minutes from that. Um uh they moved to approve a variance from the sign code to construct a pole sign exceeding the maximum 28T height at the time. Uh and from the requirement that pole signs have only a single support binding that one, the proposed sign does not provide an unfair advertising advantage over neighboring businesses by allowing a taller detached sign than allowed by code. And two, the property does possess unique geological constraints or geographical sorry constraints. That warrant detached that warrant detached sign that is taller than allowed in the sign district due to the fact that it drops down from the interstate. And three, the proposed signage does meet the intent of the sign code and the sign variance criteria with the condition that the sign uh be uh you know ratified by uh C dot basically which Jim talked about earlier. So that is the that's the previous 2014 uh submitt and approved language. Um

just a quick project timeline. So there's the 2014 approval of the previous variant submitt. Uh February 3rd this past year, almost a year ago now, we submitted for a building permit because the variances existed. Well, we thought they did. Um in May they got revoked basically. So I submitted everything through the portal and in May it came back that you can't use the variances because it's expired. Um, in October I resubmitted all the materials to get on your uh, November meeting and the Glenwood Post forgot to notice it the second time. So, that didn't happen. Uh, I resubmitted all the materials in November to be on the December meeting. Unfortunately, Jim got sick and he had requested that I send him the language of what the what the what the uh, public notice was going to say and I missed that deadline. So, here we are, October 7th. So, or I'm sorry, I said October, but now we're back to to to January for this meeting. Um, this is the proposed location of it. The And I'm going to Can you guys see the cursor if I do that? Okay. So, this is the main building, the main spa building. That's the front entrance right there. This is all the parking. This is the drop off. And then the structure is right there at the end of the lands at the end of the parking island. The little pathway that exists gets moved over to to put the structure in there. the the the base of the structure is 20 feet by 20 feet. Um, jump down here. Um, the the that the location, sorry, let me go back up one. The location of that is 100 feet from the edge of the eastbound I70 lane. So, that's how far away it is from I7. The previous one, there was some indication of it was going to be way over like five feet off the rightway. So, this is much further back. And I'll get into reasoning for that. Um, much to Rachel's chigrin, I'm going to

show you the panoramic photo, but this is standing this is this is this basically is standing like right here and and and panoramic shooting around the site. So, that the this this is the ex where the the island where it goes. This is the concrete that these steps that need to get uh moved. Um there's the existing uh main lodge and front entrance. That fence behind that fence is uh is um uh the I70 corridor. And over here to the right uh way over here is the kind of mixed use with the state police and C dot building and the housing up above. Um this is a quick comparison between they are not the same thing at all in terms this is to scale. This is basically the scale of what they're the difference in scale. The the the signs are the same height between 36 and 44 feet. Um ours really only goes to 43 feet, but that was the sign band that Jim and I discussed. Um the total height of the proposed one is 47 feet. The total height of the previous one is 52 feet. And even that I think is marginal. I think that's to the midpoint right there. So maybe it's 54 feet this whole thing. Um the signage is less. It was 224 on the previous 2014 application. It's only 195 on this one. The base dimension of this one, near as I can tell, was like 25 by 25. Um, and then uh um yeah, and that's kind of the the the lowown on that. Uh this is just to just for reference, and you guys probably all know this, this is these are the closest four buildings to to this project. You've got you've got the hotel, which I was on planning and zoning for when it came through, uh, which is, uh, got a variance to be 60 feet tall and has signage way up high on it for I and and they specifically came

in and said, "We got to have it bigger because I7 is right there and everyone's going so fast and we need signage." Um, this is that mixeduse building with C dot and uh the state police in it. This is the C dot building. Um, and then this is the the uh Two Rivers Office Building. The Two Rivers Office Building, near as I can tell, is about 52 feet tall. The hotel's 60 feet tall. Um, and again, I'm I'm I'm estimating the mixeduse building is 36 feet tall. And just the building part of C DOT is 30 feet tall with these tanks out here that are probably a little taller. Um, if I do a quick like mockup of the of the tower, um, and I apologize for it being kind of rudimentary, but this is looking uh north uh from the corner of the C dot property past the mixeduse building right here. And that is, again, I'm I'm and I'm not cheating it. That is roughly the scale of the tower right there or of the the water tower. Um, there's three of these. This is from 6 and 24 uh looking west across I7 to the tower. And that's that's again generally uh scaled to the proper size. And then this is on I70 taking my life into my hands. Uh um looking looking south uh and and that's the tower kind of behind the fence. Uh this is the mixeduse building and the main building for for Iron Mountain is right there. Um, this is just just and and and I understand we're in the 6 and 20 sign corridor. These are other 6 and20 signs and some of them are fairly new like Mountain Chevrolet, two poles. Adventure in two poles. And then to your guys's question about what's a structure and what's not. I mean, the Glenwood Springs Mall has a roof on it, but it's not a structure,

but it's got I don't know how many different things going on. Um, so just other examples of what's there. And then uh and then I strictly I70 signage. Um, the Maverick sign has got to be at least 40 feet tall down there. And this is if you look at the the upper the site plan here. The the circle to the oval is where the where the uh the Maverick sign is down here. And then Iron Mountain is right here. It's the only really similar piece of property. like it. The river's on one side, I70 is on the other, it's down below, not up above like everything on the on the other side of 6 and 24. And that thing definitely, you know, there there's no doubt that sign right there is not 20 ft tall and has more I think it has more than one pole, but I didn't look at that. So, um then then we get to coming off I7 at the other exit. Um that is an eight pole sign by the way right there for the other hot springs. Um located I I would guess 50 feet from I70 something like that. So just for reference and that's the same eight pole sign again. Um the the to to get into like the the the variance criteria um about the site and its you know uh the hardship or the you know exceptional you know shape or configuration of it site conditions um I would say it's less about the shape of the site and more about the location both geographically and topographically. And it talks about zone districts too and there's there's only three RE zone districts. It's the community center there and the nursing or the um I don't know what I'm calling that. Um the nursing home that's out by the Sunlight Bridge. Um you know, so this this site um again, and this is one of the criteria from 2014, I know I'm

not supposed to mention it, but it is below I70. So, so it it is not it is not above it does not sit on that on that east side, you know, up above 6 and 24 and any of that stuff. So, um that is an issue. Um the other issue with it is the use of it, you know, for better or worse dictates like you're going to focus the buildings on the river. So that pushes them further away from the interstate. And then the parking is all is all fronting the the the interstate. And again, this is a I would say this is not a hardship. They there's utilities everywhere. So that original location where Iron Mountain said they were going to put it 5t away from the thing way out by the interstate is not possible. There's stuff everywhere in that site and and inaccessible spots. So, um, uh, the, uh, I I I think, you know, there there's there's a definite constraint on the site to where the sign can go and where it goes dictates how how tall it needs to be to be able to see it based on those mock-ups. Um, the the the fact that one of the criteria is not harming the public and not um, you know, impairing the intent or purposes of the code. I I I would disagree with that. I think the height and the scale of the tower is well within the fabric of those existing buildings. You know, the size of those surrounding structures are some of the biggest in Glenwood. Um, and then uh um I I think the the the sign pollution comment I try not to take offense, but the sign pollution comment I I think at best is like misguided. I mean the the the idea is to take the sign and integrate it into a historically kind of iconographic form, you know, um the overall aesthetic, I think, is super positive. Um versus, you

know, you know, this type of thing. I mean, this type of pole sign, you know, and maybe there does need to be some discussion of integrated signs that aren't this or that and there's nothing in the middle. I I that's a whole other thing. Um um you know and and to say that like well it distracts drivers will will everything I mean you could say that about any sign on any highway anywhere you know um it's the the the hotel has signs at like 55 ft up there. I mean it it's you know um and then I and then I think key to this is like the reasonable part the word in the in the what is a hardship you know and and and how do you get beyond some of this stuff for a variance I mean what is reasonable you know like is it is it well sorry you know you guys built everything so tough luck you know you're done you know you can you can get your 20 foot pole sign and and and there's no there's no other way around it um you know the the the sort of unique use of the site, the location, you know, focusing on the river, you know, along I7 where people are going 65 miles an hour in that RE1 zone district and the and that and the topography of the site relative to I70, you know, I I I think what we intended was that the that e even more so than than the than the old uh than the original one, which I'll get to again, Um, you know, I I I sorry, jump past it. You know, if I was up there, I'd have a hard time with this one over here, you know, that got approved earlier, just because it looks like they just took the sign and stuck it to the side of a of a tower. This, I think, should be something you would want because it's like an integrated piece and it's and

it's more than just a sign. um you know sort of better than the standard pole sign I guess um um and I think it adds to the you know aesthetic of the city as a whole. So that Bruce, do you have any anything else to That's it. That's your presentation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. questions from the commission of the applicant.

Okay. I have I have a question. Um so um how much lower is it? Is it uh below I70? I depends on where you are on the site. You know, well do I guess for me the base. So that parking lot and I'm going to guess at it Pete. um five or six feet. So it's five or six feet where the where the base and the base of that is versus that's maybe best case scenario. I mean if you move around the site it probably gets worse than that but probably about where we're at and that I I'm totally guessing at that.

Okay, Commissioner Conton. Um, so from the parking lot of the hot like Iron Mountain, it's probably would you guesstimate 75 ft or 50 feet from I70 to where? To the parking lot of Iron Mountain. Isn't that what your question was, Pete? No, he said vertically. I was I was vertically to say that it's set down. Okay. But what's the I see it's 100 ft from at least 100 ft. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. My question was on net. Yeah. Okay. Um let's see. So on these two structures, you're saying that the sign itself, the oval sign that was originally approved is going to be would be the same height if we were to approve the other design that you've created. It's a foot lower. It's a foot one foot lower. Yeah. We only went we we set a sign band of like the same 36 to 44.

Yeah. So So we stuck with that criteria from the original to this, but the sign is technically lower. Jim is saying the sign's 47 feet tall because he's counting the whole barrel. That's the way their code reads. You have to like calculate the entire area of the barrel, not just the letters. So that's steel. And then wood. The barrel is wood. The the the platform's wood. The barrel is wood. The top is steel. The roof of the barrel is metal. I can jump in. I think we're confusing two different things. The height. Um GM, could you could you get to the microphone?

So the the height doesn't take into account the measurement of the sign at all. Just from a practical standpoint. Is this going to be this is close to that new housing then? Because looking at the parking lot, there's the housing that's kind of there. Is that where that So the you're talking about the mixeduse building? Yeah. It's like way over here. Okay. Sorry. You can see it right here. I see. Like that's I don't know what the distance I'm going to guess, but it's pretty far away. It's 210 ft. Specific distance. Pretty far. That was exactly pretty far. Yeah, [laughter] to be located

clearly not in engineering and the tower is set to be located about 50 ft from the highway.

That's the right to the rightway is what Jim means with the 50 the hundreds to the actual lane. Yeah. Other questions for the applicant? Um, okay. So, I have just a couple clarifying questions. Um, so, so go back to the to the comparison ones just not that I would need to compare. I'm not comparing them, but just so I can see it. So, so the new one is is it a wraparound sign? Yeah, it's on two sides of the It's on the north and south, right? East, east and west.

East and west, sorry. North and south, east and west. Yeah. So, it's it's the same thing basically on two sides of that. But yes, it it on the curve of the barrel. I mean, the other one, and not that it matters, but I'm just so I have clarity. The iron the one to the right that we're looking at, that was a flat side. Yeah. And this one goes around the water. Yes. Yeah. That was my question. Okay. And then so does is it point right towards I7? I mean so this is an I7 sign. It's meant to be east and west I7, right? East and west and right at 70.

Okay. Um Okay. Um Commissioner Gin, sorry I can't read what it says under the hot is Iron Hot Mountain Hot Springs. The World Springs Resort. They're the new owner. Um, and but there's no like way finding like exit here. There's no like way finding on this side. That's No, that's it. Just that just that part there.

You good? Yeah, I just couldn't read it. Okay. Which I don't need it. Commissioner Commissioner White, you mentioned the hot springs had an eight post sign. Yeah, that one the one I showed is has eight post. [clears throat] They're all right together. Yeah, there's four and four on each side of that thing. And then they sort of the variance that we approved though, was it? Because I was on that previously approved variance. It was a previous approved. I don't remember some of the other signs that we also showed you were were approved via variances as well.

I was here but I remember anyways that doesn't matter. Guess it was it that was not the subject of the recent sign package update that they that was previous variance years and years ago. Oh okay. But when they did the sign updates that was not a part of that. Correct. Oh good. I'm not crazy. [clears throat] Okay. Um, my wife would say I'm not crazy for that reason. [laughter] Any more questions for the applicant? Let me see if I got online here. I just have one more question.

Okay, Commissioner White, I think it's worth asking. So the um expiration of the previous variants didn't have anything to do with um the city responding or um our system our online system. Correct. I no that that would have expired in you that would have expired in 2017. Okay. They could have asked for an additional three year after that too.

Okay. But I I I would like to clarify that a little bit. Um when you approve a variance, you are approving a sightspecific development plan that includes the exact design of this sign as well as the location of this sign. So the fact that they have changed the design and the location would throw that out out of the picture. Anyways, okay. Thank you, Commissioner Sipperly. I would um be curious to know how high the lower horizontal bars are under the proposed tank. [clears throat] Are you talking about right here?

Uh the next one down like can you walk under this? Can you climb on it? No, it also has it also has uh um the steel lateral system. There's cables running through there to so it doesn't move in the wind, right? Those cross you can't walk through there. You wouldn't even if it was tall enough, you would hit those. You would hit the turnbuckle and the and the tie off. I mean, are kids going to want to crawl in there and explore the thing? That's it's accessible, right? So, I mean, you could be walking through the parking lot and run into those horizontal members because those legs aren't illuminated, right? Just the sign on top is back lit.

Yeah, I guess that's sure. I I start with I don't know what that total overall plan of sight lighting is exactly. Um, so there's those cross cables in each of the three side sections. Okay. Yeah. I guess I can speak to Wendy and talk to you guys. Um, yeah. Could you state your name, too? Yeah. I'm Rachel Saki. And when we had talked about deviating from the original design, one of the concerns that we had was that it would be an attractive nuisance. So actually that's how we ended up with that because we didn't want to be responsible for somebody climbing on it. Um to help answer question

but there's really nothing to prevent anyone from climbing on it. Um by design we didn't put in the stairs and some of those other things because we had debated oh do we want to be able to access up top. So, we thought with the cabling that would be a deterrent and then just that it didn't have the structural members very close together. Yeah, it's a lot lighter of a structure in the proposed. Right. Um, so there's no other illumination other than the letters on the top of the circular part of the sign. Correct. I'm not sure um like you were saying, Bruce, what the parking lot lighting situation is around there. Justin, you might have better Justin.

Um, yeah, there's definitely there's there's there's lighting. There's definitely lighting here and there's lighting in between the parking. And could you please introduce yourself to them? Yeah, sorry. Justin Wells with Iron Mountain Hot Springs. And what Bruce is showing the parking lot lights here. uh there's strands of lights and there is I believe pathway locks on that intended pathway um that illuminates that which you know by byproduct will illuminate those structure towers or bases.

And I have one other somewhat unrelated question. Um years ago we approved a green roof on a building at Iron Mountain Hot Springs. I was excited for that. Anyway, thank [clears throat] you. Is that a question? Well, I'm sort of wondering where it is. Where is it? It's a statement. It's a statement. It was going to be the first thing Glenwood. Um, Commissioner Gin was wondering um could you go to the slide where you had the historical looking building and what is that? What is this? Yeah, I don't know. You just made that at like 1905. No, that's it. That's from the site.

That is from the site from 1905. How big is that? It's hard to tell. [laughter] I mean, I'd guess that's, you know, if the building behind it is about I'm totally guessing here. I mean, do you think it's about the same scale as maybe? Maybe a little smaller. Little smaller. I think 354t maybe something like that. So, that was the original Iron Mountain hot springs. Yeah. Yeah. This I think this 1905 is what I understood this to be from. I think that's interesting that there's historical aspect to replacing them. That's kind of a thing that we Why don't you hold hold to you? We can help you.

We That's one thing that Iron Mountain really kind of strives to be kind of a steward of that historic kind of feel to it. The bath house itself, the sighting was taken from the water tower from the uh CMC building from years ago. I'm not a original local, so I don't know. Um, but that's kind of the feels that we want to kind of keep back from the Wash Allen bath house and kind of keep that history and aesthetic as we, you know, expand. Yep. Hey, thank you. Other questions?

Okay. Thank you very much, Bruce. Okay. Um, any comments from the public? Is anyone from the public here online? I see no one online. Okay. Um, so public hearing is closed. Um, okay. Now it comes back to the commission to make a motion so we can discuss it. Commissioner Conton.

Okay. So, we'll discuss it after, but I'd like to make an alternative motion to approve. Um, and I'm going to go through the reasons why. Uh, so for on the two variances, excuse me. So, on the first one, I'll start at the top. I had to exceptional site conditions exist. So, just uh correct me if you guys want to uh if I'm off course here. So the site shape, river adjacency, um not to mention it is looking down from I7. Um buildings are angled in ways not typical um and um and not common. So that's my reasoning for that. And then for number two, um strict code application produces undue hardship. Um so due to the site's physical and um regulatory constraints, strict compliance in signage that cannot reasonably function for identification way finding comparable to similarly situated properties. Um so I'm not saying it's less effective marketing but functional impairment caused by site conditions because I'm looking at this strictly from a site perspective. Um, hardship not self-created. Um, the hardship arises from inherent psych characteristics and regulatory constraints, not from the applicant's design choices. No harm to public or code intent. Um uh the proposal advances design quality, consolidates signage, and enhances corridor character in a matter consistent with the intent of the sign regulations as well as some of the

things that the applicant mentioned such as he could have multiple poll signs. Um and we can discuss this more, but I also wanted to say where this could intersect with the strategic plan as well and distinctive character. Um and then hardship beyond convenience or financial gain. Am I on the right track? Uh so the hardship results from physical site constraints. Kind of what I mentioned before affecting basic site identification not from a desire for increased exposure or profit. Um no building fire conflict already supported. Minimum variance necessary. Um, the requested configuration represents the minimum relief necessary to address sight specific visibility and placement constraints. And that's it.

That was that seven. Yeah, you did. Good job. Okay, we have a second for that motion.

Commissioner Ken. Second. Okay, we have a a motion by Commissioner Conton, a second by Commissioner Cowan. Okay, now let's have discussion. Commissioner White,

I mean I think just looking at the first um criteria that does not is not in compliance, the strict application of the code standard for which the variance is sought would produce undue hardship. I think they could come up with a variety of different designs that would meet our code and that would not create hardship for them. So, for me, this is a no. Um, I think that's just one. I think that again, the applicant um did not create the hardship by his or her own actions. I mean, they chose a design that is not in compliance with the code. So, I think that they are um and you know, those are just two. I think I could continue and just go down the list. For me, I think we could come up with a I just think that the design could be in compliance with I feel like the intent of the code is to um just protect the character of of um our community and I think that um for me this doesn't do it. Okay, other comments. Commissioner Cipperly,

I will agree with um Commissioner Wei that I feel like there are just too many circumstances here. Um although I think the design is really interesting, I don't think that it is approvable because they brought this hardship upon themselves in my opinion. Another thing that kind of concerns me is that it's [clears throat] not really a historic structure and it's pretending to be one. Um, and I mean it's not the original tower. If this was a sign on the original tower, I would be much more willing to approve that, but it's looking like it's a piece of railroad history and the railroad wasn't there. So, I I [clears throat] um I think it it is actually compromising to the community. Um there's we're been trying to minimize the amounts of poles on signs and visual clutter. And yes, this sign isn't going to really be in between your your view uh in a lot of places, but uh it does seem like it is designed to give the the business an advantage over their their competitors because the sign would be significantly taller than any other allowable sign um in that district. So, I'm going to have to lean against approving this and I hope to maybe see that sign somewhere more appropriate sometime later.

Okay. Commissioner Conton.

Well, I mean I instead of generic pole signage, I kind of feel like this lines up with um like I was saying a little bit about architecturally con contextually. It's visually themed. Yes. Um, and I have to agree that when you're going 75 miles an hour down the highway and you're going eastbound, it's really difficult to see any sign, let alone a sign that's down 100 ft from um the highway. And so I think it would be really hard for them and if not impossible for them to capture people from the highway when you're traveling either westbound or eastbound. And so, um, this instead of being so generic on a pole really brings out some character and, um, you know, it's facing east west. It's not, um, interrupting anything. C dot doesn't disagree with it. Um, I mean I I know it's not something we looked at in 2014 and is conceptually very different, but um it is something that we're trying to do as a town with the character and um it does meet a lot of the parts of the strategic plan. Not that those two things, we're looking at two different things, but they do intersect at some point where, you know, economic vitality, distinctive character, those things. And so, um, that's why I am voting yes,

Commissioner Hton. Yeah, I I just keep coming back to the our definition in in the code of of hardship, and I I tend to agree that this I don't think this rises to that level. Um, Carl, correct me if I'm wrong, but is is reasonable use not not a legal term or or concept? Is there is there some additional baggage behind a reasonable use in that definition? Um, I I don't think for you guys purpose necessarily there really is okay.

Um, any additional baggage. I I think in the context of everything, you guys can kind of, you know, it's these things are always kind of a totality situation to look at. So, I think you're fine. Yeah. I just think, yeah, it doesn't rise to that that definition of hardship in that is in our code and that we're, you know, using over and over again in our in our justification. Conton,

it's a either or. However, it is does say practical difficulty or hardship. And so I do think it meets practical difficulty.

Commissioner Superly. Jim, could you tell us if it would be a compliant sign if it was painted on the roof like the old one? Interesting. Uh, [laughter] the gate I mean it's pointing the right direction. Interesting. Paint on the roof of the Oh, historic photo. Yeah, I think that would be considered attached signage and that would likely exceed the square footage of area permitted for a sign, but it could be done. She's just being

No, the roof used to be painted and it said think of those back when you drain it. No, and I wasn't kidding. I mean, if there was different color shingles or whatever, it seems like it would have to be compliant. Um, just look for other options. [laughter] Um for the for the roof signing it the allowance in the the code is for two square feet of sign per linear foot of the building frontage for that particular building. So we'd have to determine which one is the frontage. I mean well the entry. Yeah.

Well, but I think we're deviating from the from the from the request here. We're trying to design something that's not in our purview. Um. Yep. Good job. Okay. Um, Commissioner Gin,

so one of the um undue hardships that was spoken about was that it was lower on the interstate and you said it was the the um speaker said it was only by about five or six feet, right? And but they're 17 feet over the maximum. And I'm just wondering, does it have to be 47? You know, I understand where they're coming from the undue hardship as far as it being lower so it's harder to see. I guess I'm just trying to get there. But 17 feet over, so that would be 26 feet. they would have it as the maximum height, but they're at 47 feet. Is that right?

Or what's the height of the actual sign? Yes, correct. Um, you know, I think that that's within the applicant's perview if they wish to do that. Um, I I they could revise their application and bring a a different request to you. But again, I don't think it's up to to you all to design it for to approve something that's not being requested. What was the height of the actual sign? Because um to 44 38 Yeah. 38 to 44. 38 to 44. Okay. Still pretty high. The actual sign is 43. The top of the actual lettering is 43 ft. 43 ft. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions, Connie? Or comments? Your comments? Well, and um I really do like the the look of it as far as like historical. I know it's not it's not actually historical. Um, and I do think it would add a unique character to our town to see something like that when you're driving down the interstate. Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Caller.

Uh, yeah, just reiterating from Commissioner Conton, that is practical difficulty or undue hardship. So, that's kind of a determinative phrase there. Um, and also I believe kind of going to that a little bit I think like sighteline wise we're coming up on on 70. So from the tower from the sign we're looking at a 5 to six foot reduction I guess in sighteline height because we are elevated on the interstate. I think that's how I understood kind of that that presentation. So I think effective signage height would be somewhere in that 38 um if I'm doing doing math right in my head. So somewhere there.

Okay. Other Yeah. Well, just to to add to that, um Gregory, I did go to Google Earth and just get an estimate of the elevation of where this sign is as compared to the adjacent roadway. There was approximately 10 foot of elevation difference. That's very approximate, but so 30 if my math is correct. Okay. Um, yeah. Here's So, okay. What do you have, Commissioner White?

I just, this is just a comment, but I think that we live in a community that is very, very, very sensitive to signage. And so for me um you know when you're pushing well beyond the variance uh or the code um I'm just [clears throat] a little hesitant to do that. I think even you know in past applications that we've seen increasing font was was even perceived as as kind of a um ownorous thing. And so for me this this feels like a big push. Okay. Commissioner Conton,

I mean, I hear what you're saying. I just think that there is some practical difficulty with this site. I think that this is um architecturally not obnoxious. I also think that, you know, I'd rather see something like this than a 40ft Maverick sign that I drive by often. And um and in east, you know, if you're going uh down Highway 6, you see a lot of signs that um I would rather not see at all. And this one seems like you would see what maybe five feet of it or eight feet of it. Is that what everybody decided from the highway? So

10 is 10 feet. Is that what he said? 10. No, I'm just saying that's that top. That's the elevation difference between the location where this sign's going to be and the road above, right? It's like 30. Yeah. 33. The max 20. Yep. By the

Okay. Um Okay. Um I think it's it's tough. So, it it um here's a couple thoughts I have is on I I also kind of like the sign and I think if I think of the comp plan, you know, we're trying to make our community look more small townish look better, that sort of thing. And pull signs remind me of, you know, I'm driving down South Glenwood or somewhere. I mean I mean some place that's that's um more signage kind of thing. So that that that's kind of one of my things from a look and I agree it's not the historical thing that we looked at when we saw from back in the day. It sure isn't like that but it's but it's more in that way than a pole sign sticking up there on a red colored pole or a brown colored pole. Um and and I kind of I think Commissioner Connorton did a pretty good job of trying to go through coming up with the hardship and again that's it's a tough thing you know I mean it's um you know it is a tough thing to to define and you know the the property I think that's as good as anything for the physical site for me and and I think from being in the community for a lot of people it's kind of a a barren place you know there's not a lot of stuff around it you know there's the sea dot building, which is kind of like a where trucks go in and out of and all that sort of thing. There's not it's a it's a large space where there's not much. So, I'm kind of I think I'm leaning to support it or to to approve the variance, I think, is where I'm kind of coming from. But, um it's good to hear all the conversations and I understand all of the stuff and and the code. It's [clears throat] difficult. Um, so other thoughts or Commissioner Cley,

I just feel it would be setting a dangerous precedent. You know, if we have let this really twice as tall as allowable sign come through, the next guy is going to expect us to do the same and then I'm just worried that the whole intent of the sign cone is thrown out the window. Um, so, uh, as much as I do like this particular sign, I I I can't justify these five negatives that staff found in the report. Okay. Commissioner Conton

and and because it's um Commissioner Cyperly's last evening, I respectfully disagree, Karen, [laughter] but um [laughter] I kind of feel like every variance is sight specific and we can look at and when somebody comes to us with a variance, we're looking at that site in particular. I'm not looking at this broadly and yes, maybe people might get excited about it, but that doesn't mean we're going to approve every variance that comes before us. I think that this one does have this practical difficulty and um that's why I'm moving to approve. So,

Commissioner White, except for we inevitably ask the question, are there any other signs like this in town? So, we do use it as a something that we um we weigh that in our decision. Absolutely. And I do believe it does um it does give people the option to come forward and feel like there's going to be acceptance. Um not and and you're right, obviously we do review every application, but but there is a consideration placed on that, I think. Okay. Any other comments? How many do we have to have to approve or deny?

Four to three. Four to three. Any other comments or Okay. Um, Commissioner Hton.

Yes. I just clarify that I I understand it's practical difficulty or undue hardship, but I don't see either of those that are preventing the use of the land as otherwise allowed by the code. I think there's a number of ways that that within the the guard rails of the code that could be used and and put to to reasonable use. Hey, thank you, John. Okay. Any other Okay. I think let's Will you clarify? When we vote yes, it's for the motion. Well, so so so we're voting to Yeah. Yes. Is an approval.

A a yes is approval because Yeah. A yes is an approval. And I think so that the verbiage to to Jim's last page of the alternative motion to approve I mean do you have that good enough or or Yeah. lots and lots of findings that was great. No but I Okay. So, so we have so we have those you know whether you approve or deny those are there so that okay is yes um commission commissioner guy are we only voting on the action one no the motion was for both

for both okay got it thank you and that's kind of consistent with how Jim did his thing too he did not do this was laid out as a joint motion both to um correct Move to deny or move to Right. You're fine. That was a good question. Good question. Okay. Um I mean is that so a vote of yes is a is approval that given the criteria plus additional comments I guess additional findings get added to that. Okay, let's call it.

Let's call it. The motion passes four to three. Okay. Thank you, Jim. And thank you, applicant. Thank you. Sorry for the noticing brain damage, Rebecca. [laughter] Usually like we're fighting today.

So mean's house. He's relieved. He's like, I don't have to go build a a water tank on my property. [laughter] I put it on that. It would have made it harder. Fill that thing up with deer. That's all I want to know. They're just Okay, let's move on. That was the most tumultuous food we've ever gotten since the wild cops were here since the lights. Yeah, exactly.

I thought I thought it was good. I thought it was good discussion. I mean, it was I thought it was a good discussion. And it's not it's not a good I can't believe it. Okay. Shh. Hey. Hey. [laughter] We should have pulled it. Okay. We're not going there. We have We're not done. Done. Oh, I'm done. [laughter] I'm gonna miss you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to bring this back to order here.

Okay. Um Okay. The next item is um a work session on lighting and illumination. Emory. Yes. Okay. This is this is this is going to be lively and fun. There should have been cake. [laughter] That's all I got to say.

Leftovers. Uh so for this work session I have a pretty short uh presentation with a couple points um and then we'll kind of just go from there. Uh staff does have some points we can talk about but also to just the idea it's kind of open ask questions discuss things uh just get this uh topic kind of started um and see where it goes. So I'll share my screen here. I saw stuff in me talking about lighting. Okay. So, work session on lighting and illumination.

This just for John. No.

Um so, first topics for tonight kind of go through four different sections. Um just general concepts, lighting and illumination, how it works, how it's measured, how it's regulated. uh lighting districts, lighting types, and then also including um signage in here as well. Uh so I guess just to point out before we get into it, uh there's two separate sections of code. There is an entire section devoted just to lighting like exterior lighting fixtures and then there's another the other section which you were just talking about which is just specific for signage. And so you do have it in both. So first, if you're going to regulate something, you do have to measure it. And so this is typically how light is measured. And so a lumen measures the power of a source. So if you think of a light bulb, how much light does that give off? And the amount of illumination um that to what degree, you know, you can see uh that's a separate unit of measure. Here in the United States, we do it with a foot candle. Uh and then everywhere else in the world use something called a lux, which is based on one square meter instead of one square foot. So like in this diagram one lumen basically think of like one candle it illuminates a certain area that's a foot candle and so that's how with our code um mostly uh we we do this for measurement. So source is lemon uh the amount of illumination is a foot candle and you'll often see that in something. So this is a lighting plan and so you can see that little block and circle that represents the lighting fixture which is going to have a set amount of lumens for its output. And then all of the figures that you see there that's the amount in foot candles. So you can see um and this is a clip. So there's other fixtures in this lighting plan but you can see okay when you're closer to the fixture it's at 5.5 6.1. So there's there's other light lights in this plan, but that's the general idea is you can understand quickly looking at a lighting plan how bright something is.

And again, that's how our eyes perceive the brightness too. Um so within the city, uh the way similar to just like zoning districts or sign districts, we also have lighting districts and we have three of them. Uh the first district is uh commercial mixeduse more intensive zoning districts grouped into one lighting district called district one and then we have two and three which is basically comprised of all the other zoning districts. So one important thing to point out here is that it's based on zoning district and not use. So you could have a multifamily development in the commercial zoning district and it would fall under all the lighting standards for district one, which means that that site could be lit a little bit brighter than a multifamily development in RH zoning district in district two. So you could have the same use in two different places fall under some pretty different lighting standards. Um so again, it's really specific to zoning. Um so this is just an example of how those standards differ. And so this is one of the main uh standards we have for elimination is it has to invol it involves how much light basically leaves the property or light trespass. And so in lighting district one which is that more intensive zoning district you can have up to five foot candles at the property line at point A and then point B which is 10T past your property line it's three. And so you can see there's a pretty big difference between uh districts one and then districts two at three. And then just again to illustrate the point, you have point A, point B. Um, so lighting districts, which ones they are and where they are. And so this is just a map. So again, you can see lighting district one, kind of the more commercial corridors, uh, lighting district 2, and then lighting district 3. So that's that's where they are in town. Would be worth to point out, you can see some gaps. So for example, part of Glenn doesn't show up on here. That's because that's a PUD. And so that has very specific standards. uh to that area

and these standards don't necessar necessarily apply. Um now that being said, uh not every PUB has a whole lot on lighting. So as far as regulation, that's definitely I mean visually it's kind of a gap, but also as far as the rules go as well. Um and then lighting types. And so there's different types of fixtures. Uh here one just way to look at lighting is you can have it be shielded, partially shielded, or fully shielded. And that refers to how much light escapes past the horizontal. So an unshielded fixture, light is going everywhere. It's going up, down, around. Then you can have kind of partially shielded. So again, reducing that angle. And then finally, you can have something that's fully shielded where it just directs the light downward. Um, so again, just to illustrate the point, uh, district one, all fixtures must be full cut off. So that, you know, you can do higher lighting in those districts, but everything has to be full cut off. And then when you get to two and three, there's a little more flexibility. Um, which again, kind of coming back to that lumen measure, uh, you could have, for example, in lighting district 2, you can have something that maybe isn't fully shielded, but there's a limit on how many lumens, uh, that light source can have. So, your your light fixture can cannot exceed a certain amount of lighting power. Another thing that you can regulate is lighting color. And so if you just look at this picture, you know, there's definitely the way your the human eye perceives light is different um depending on what color it is. And this is also an aspect of uh illumination regulation. City currently does not regulate for color as far as fixtures. Uh and the way that it works is basically um so these are all the different colors and you measure it with some you know Kelvin which is usually per temperature. So the idea is if you heated something up to 10,000 Kelvin, that's what it would glow as. Think like

a blacksmith. And so Dark Sky International, which is an organization um that promotes like night sky and illumination regulation, they generally recommend you don't go over 3,000 Kelvin. Um which so for example, if the city were to add regulation, that might be in addition to the lumen limit, you'd also have this. and stuff like you'll get a light bulb, think about what that looks like. And again, this is exterior illumination. This doesn't apply to lighting fixtures inside a restaurant, inside a retail shop. This is all exterior. Um, so again, that's how it's measured and generally what it looks like. So the bluer light, you know, kind of go back to this first picture. Uh, human eye kind of perceives that as brighter. So, and then it's kind of reverse. you know, you describe sort of a warmer light, but that's actually on the lower end of the spectrum where a cool light is a little bit reverse thinking there. Um, so that kind of covers all of the areas of regulation for exterior lighting. And then we also talk about illumination and signage. And so one way, and we've talked about this with different sign variances, is just how something is lit. So it can be internally illuminated uh which basically the light source is within the sign and you might have like a translucent letter uh other methods um but basically the it's inside the sign and versus indirect which is where you'd have light it may be downcast that's what code requires but basically an exterior source and so just for some examples this is a pretty standard internally illuminated sign face lit letters that light source is within the sign. It's here. You have the letter face kind of glowy. Um, so that's one one type of sign. Another one is neon. And so that's, you know, you have a tube filled with neon gas and then the lighting elements inside of it. So again, internally illuminated. Um, so that's another type. Um, this is an electronic message board. So these are

prohibited by code, but again that's your light source is internal um to the sign. Uh, this is another good example. So you can also just have the really simple like cabinet sign where you can see some of these definitely are illuminated and some of these are not. And so that's kind of the contrast between the two. So those are some other examples. Um externally illuminated signs. So these are just examples. Um you know you would you're going to have downcast light. Here's your sign. Doesn't have a lighting element itself. Then there's the lights. Another version of this is what's called halo style signage. So that's where you know it gives you that visual of maybe an internally illuminated sign but what's happening is you have your sign face in the wall and that light is shining into the wall and then the halo effect that's that's how you get that. Um so code we consider this an externally illuminated sign. Um so one example of this is in the downtown core you cannot have you know an internally illuminated sign but you can have an externally illuminated one. So um like A&B bank um Yampa Yampampa hot springs they have halo lit signs which are considered externally illuminated. Um so this is an example of another way you can do this where you have upward directed lighting. So this is not allowed um because it shines light up but it's just another example of how you can have external illumination. And then we do have time limits. Um, so any sign within 300 feet of a residential zoning district has to be turned off by 10 p.m. or 1 hour later than close of business. Um, so that's specific to just being close to a residential zoning district. That kind of takes a different metric as opposed to looking at lighting districts. Um, so this is an example. This could be something that commission could discuss whether like should this just be across the board? uh do we need signs illuminated 247? Because right now it just is if it's close to a residence uh

a residential zoning district. So again, you could have again residential uses in a commercial zoning district. This won't apply. Uh and then like I mentioned, internally illuminated signs are not allowed in the downtown core. Uh there is an exception for neon signs. Uh I would say that you know regardless of whether something is externally illuminated or internally illuminated you know the amount of light that it gives off could be the same. So partly where that standard comes from is a little bit more on the aesthetic side than the actual brightness piece. Um so again just kind of thinking spectrum of lighting and what it means to community. That's the start. Um and then again I just for maybe discussion points um just a couple things you know external versus internally illuminated uh the differences in the lighting districts um potential for regulating lighting color um or really just anything else that you'd like to discuss or have questions on. I think the goal too is we can have this conversation tonight and if there's any recommendations or things that you would like staff to follow up on at a future planning and zoning commission meeting such as like a proposed code amendment um that would maybe be another goal of the discussion tonight.

Yep. So, just to add to that, um, you know, back in our, um, our work session with city council in the fall, there were only a couple issues where there was shared concern or questions about. One of which was lighting. Um, the other one was housing. That's a little bit larger of a conversation. We've had a couple work sessions on that. We're going to bring that back to you here in the next couple of months. Um, but, you know, this one I I think there's clear guidance, right? You know, it it's it's we're losing our our dark sky. we're losing our stars at night. Um and and what can we do to um to to help that to codify that in in our lighting standards, I think. And what we did is we tried to use the the template dark sky standards and evaluate those against our code to say, okay, well, where are we lacking? What can we do? And I and I think really um you know Emory did a good job of kind of identifying those and this might be something that we could move forward on quicker um and if you um like that if we can find some consensus consensus around that we'll bring forward some some code um amendments to to mandate that. Um I I want to be careful in that um a lot of our light pollution is existing um legal nonconforming signage. We're not going to solve our dark sky problem with these regulations. That's a much bigger effort that probably will take a lot of outreach and education with folks. Um but you know, this is a good start.

Okay, that that was good. Um so it's a work session. I'm just thinking we should all be turned on. Yeah. I mean don't I mean don't you agree versus I mean like we did last time. Don't take that. You guys, you guys are for purposes of the recording in minutes. It would be helpful if you'd speak one at a time though. So, I mean, are you okay with that? I mean, that's what we did. I think at our last one when we sat around the table, I think then we can feed off each other. It seems like it flows better. Well, awesome. Okay. So, let's just turn everybody on. Good for you. I know. I won't be I won't be swearing. Okay.

I I just had three questions and just three to just to get us started. Is that okay? Yeah. Well, and let me throw let me throw one thing more out. They're easy. Let's let's just start from this way and we'll we'll just go down the road because she's kicking it off, but I don't care and you can add on whenever. Okay. Go go go Amy. Where does LED fit in to that presentation? Uh, it would be interior illuminated signs. So, it's LED. Well, I mean, it depends. You can have an LED exterior fixture. You could have an LED. So, a lot of times,

um, you could have a sign that mimics where did the neon sign go? You can have a sign that mimics neon, but instead of actually the gas inside the tube, it's an LED. Okay. So LED doesn't in the regulations. It's more about what that LED does. How bright is it? Where is it located on a property? And I guess I always thought LED was brighter, but sorry to you. No, that funny, but I worked for an LED lighting manufacturer and so you can get run the gamut color temperature with LED. It's it's just more efficient. You can have that's why I think typically it's perceived as brighter. People put the same wattage fixture in and it's maybe 10 times brighter than an incandescent bulb.

Yes, I just did that. That's why I asked. Um, and I had to go back to Lowe's. Um, Breida's sign. It's digital. So, that's an example of like Trent said, we have a number of legal non-conforming signs. So, Greece Monkey, Culver's, and Freda's. Okay. The three that I can think of. So, as long as they have their sign, you can maintain the legal non-conforming sign. Okay. So, those aren't going anywhere. And that was again that was when we did the code origin 2018, they were allowed. So, you saw a couple be put in have a lot of negative impacts from it. And then that was a prohibited sign. So, they're not allowed to change pictures more than once or twice a day, right?

Yeah. Oh, really? Like Kado, it used to flash and it was horrible. like the one that's on the river. Okay. So, and then last but not least is how many neon signs do we have? One, two, docks. I know. Do Ross bail bonds. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Bail bonds. So, I think how come you know that one? Interesting. And those are perceived as more aesthetically pleasing because they're a little vibby. I you could have lot of arguments for both sides and led people say it's the same kind. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

You go, Greg. I guess um not a whole lot. It's a general question about when the and this I know this has come up in our uh previous meetings, but when's the last time that we did a hard look at our lighting code? You may know better than I do. It was prior to um me being with this city. So longer than 10 years.

Yeah. It's I we did an aggressive code in the early 2000s and I think in the kind of the gap when I was just special counsel and uh Jan Shu was the attorney here. I want to say they revised that and loosened it up quite a bit. Um we had a pretty aggressive dark sky ordinance went into effect right around 2000. um got backed off of just you it was very difficult to comply with at the time and maybe it was just 20 years too early I don't know so I think that was the last time so it was probably the 2010ish would be my guess the last time it was looked at

one thing I'd add to that too um kind of like looking at code and then reviewing it so um city of Flagstaff is one of the largest cities that has like the dark sky community And we do have a lot of things like the full cut off fixtures, lighting districts. Um so I'd say that we're good on a lot of fronts. One maybe challenge is we don't um approve electric permits. So if let's say you're a homeowner and you say I need a light on my garage, you just go get an electrician that permits through the state of Colorado. Now there might be a non- cututoff fixture on your garage that's shining into your neighbor's house. Yeah. So that's a bit of a gap of like,

you know, we're not reviewing permits, you know, electric permits. So And you're saying that that's from an interior application though, right? Not Oh, no. I mean like exterior, like if you had if you wanted to put an exterior light outside your garage. Yeah. Like if I want to do a new Yeah. We're not reviewing those versus, you know, like other aspects that we're going to review. Even if there was standards, but you know, if you build a new Forplex, there is a lighting it. So that's where what Trent was getting at. It's like we have an amount of light in the community and how do you regulate that? How do you go about it? Um you know some communities will do like buybacks like you know we'll pay you to replace your exterior fixtures with like a cut off.

Right. Thanks. That's all. [laughter] Here we go. Cracking knuckle. [laughter]

I do sort of like the idea of revisiting um turning signs off at night. Uh in certain districts the signs are on all night long and I suppose you know if you're traveling up and down the highway like 82 or 70 there's there's some merit to that especially if you're looking for a hotel like they're not closed so their signs could stay on but I would like to have us um revisit. Maybe they should all turn off at a certain time. Um, and as we know, there could be residences in a commercial or mixeduse district. Um, [clears throat] I think one of the biggest offenders in light pollution is frankly the city of Glo Springs. This new, um, park across there on Sixth Street has been making the news with all of its super bright ballards. Apparently, it's to deter the homeless population from hanging out over there, but it deters everyone from hanging out over there. And it's it's just very glaring.

Which one is bright? The sixth street crossing over there. Yeah, the north. I saw the council that lights shining

and you know the lighting at Two Rivers Park is a little bit over the top and I um the street lights outside of my house are some of the more historic ones that I don't believe are shielded and then there's usually three of those and then one of the big ones. Um so part of it is um from the city and I think that would be some sort of easy pickings as we begin to upgrade some of our infrastructure and utilities. Um, additionally, I have actually copied Emory on some other correspondents. Um, there's an apartment building behind my house and they have unshielded street lights. They have bulbs hanging along their whole porch. They don't turn off ever. Um, you know, I've spoken to the property manager. She says, "You can't even see those from your house." I'm like, "Well, I I can though." And, you know, nothing was ever done. I'm not quite sure how to go. And part of the problem with that is across the alley is the line between two different lighting districts. So yes, that's a a multif family apartment building and you know I'm in a single family. Whose jurisdiction am I in there? Are there the offenders district or the recipients district? Um because it's really cut up all through the historic downtown. Um and a while back I know um Waller brought it up, but the idea of having variable lighting levels in parking lots. Yeah.

More motion sensors, light sensors. Um and keep it when it's not being used. Turn those lights down as much as we can. Turn them on for safety. But um I think we should stick with as minimal light as we can for um safety and access and um try and keep our skies maintained as they are. Okay.

Um, what what Caroline just talked at that was that was something. In fact, I put a put a late minute call into like Clear and to CMC. I know when we when I was at CMC, we did the the parking lot lights. I mean, I I I think to me, you know, the residential ones and the ones you're talking about, I think those are all a big deal. And I um but I think the parking lots are they're they're like landing strips for alien things or something. I mean, and I mean I and I, you know, I live I live off Midland, so I don't see that, but I hear all of my friends who live in West Glennwood, they're looking at at at the mall and all that it that is just lit up. And um I know one one of and it's, you know, there's the city, but but a lot of it are are commercial property. So that's kind of I guess what I'm getting at. And I, you know, one thing that I did when I I worked for Clear and I was an energy um manager kind of person and I worked for throughout Garfield County with all the municipalities and um what one thing that that Clear was good at was doing grants. So we so we would talk to businesses and and and try to get them to put things in. And you know, you can't you can't make people change from what they have, but but maybe there's some um with Garfield Clean Energy or with some other organizations to try to figure out how do we incentivize um some things, you know, to to to work with people to do that. And anyway, but I think parking lots to what Carolyn just said, I think those are those are a big deal. Um, I like the stuff you said on the dark sky. Um, and you know, I kind of like the signs uh at night, you know, the the downtown lights and maybe it's an hour after an hour after they close or something like that. I think you brought that up, Emory. I mean, I think that's a good thing to kind of look at. And

hotels are they're never closed, so they'd be on or whatever. it and but I don't think it you know it seems like you don't need to be advertising then but I don't know um let's see and that's already in our code isn't it but it's only if you're within 300 ft of a residential zone so like if you have a expand that to different districts you could just say it's across the board was what Emry was kind of proposing I thought that was a so that Iron Mountain one doesn't get turned off the what the new Iron Mountain Fine. Well, we can turn it off. Oh, what? Because it's not near a residential district. No, but yeah, with with with what we're talking about just approved stays on East West.

Yeah. Well, that's why I'm talking about that things go up. Yeah. Right. Yep. Love it. Yeah. Like [laughter] anyway, that's and so anyway, I think that's I think that was a good thing. Um and and I you know, Carolyn talked about the light districts next to each other. I don't know how you deal with that, but I agree that's a, you know, that's a tough one. That's a tough thing. Um, maybe that's on on the commercial thing of ramping lights or something, you know, I don't know of how you do it. But anyway, it's a tough thing and I shoot I hadn't heard about the PE anyone can install whatever they want to. I think trying to figure out how you go after that in some way. I don't know's difficult but so that was a good no more

tough um and then one one last thing that I like that Emory talked about was was you know so is there are there some metrics or benchmarks that we'd like to look at I don't know if flag staff's the one or whatnot but where you can look at other people that have gone through I'm sure there's a lot of people that have gone through this and done it but um I think that's a that's a good idea to where we can learn from some other people. Okay. Yes.

Yeah. I think um the thing that popped into my brain was what you just said is it'd be nice to see who the example is or you know I think Hannah did this with housing once um basically brought up one or two examples of people that are doing it really well and then kind of a table of how we fall in that with our code. um and to look at something really tangible that we could look at and say, "Oh, well, look at we're way far off on this item. Um we'd like to inch closer to Dark Sky um code um in this area. Um, I think I would also like to see um what other municipalities are doing to incentivize people uh to, you know, businesses or or residences to um trend out of those high brighter situations and to be more compliant with dark sky practices. So, just kind of looking at the the examples and and not reinventing the wheel, seeing how others are doing it. Um, I guess I'll start off. I feel pretty strongly that the curfew should be applied citywide, not just to, you know, a certain distance to a residential zone on district because that light is traveling. I I also feel pretty strongly about the color temperature. I know I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but um there's a number of reasons.

So, so I I have a question on the color temperature. Um, Emry kind of talked about it too. So is is so is that um that's when you talked about the dark sky that it was 3,00 was that what that was. So that that's

that that 3,000 Kelvin is a longer wavelength of light so it doesn't travel as far as my understanding of of the reasoning behind. So a light in Glenwood Springs would have less effect the further you get away from it. Um, it also has detrimental effects on migratory birds. Uh, specifically the colder temperatures do. Um, and it's I I don't think it's an ownerous ask because like I said, you can get pretty much whatever you want in LE and you can dial it in to what you would like to see. So, I don't think it's ownorous on an applicant.

I have just a question on that. So, So when and and Emery put up the shielded, you know, fixtures and that sort of thing. So if you have a shielded fixture and I know as you do your um your lighting, I forget whatever it's called, your

lighting pl. Yeah. Yeah. Your your photo on things. So So if you have a shielded one, then then you're not getting as much um expansion of your light, you know, I mean, going out. I mean, so, so does when you're doing shielded, does does the Kelvin or the the color of the light matter as much or how does that how do those two play with each other, I guess, is what my question is. I mean, I would say this the ideal is both shielded and both shielded

30,000 or warm color temperature. Um I out of curiosity like do you know where the ban on linear lighting comes from specifically? I mean I know the definition references highlighting architectural features and things like that which I can understand regulating but I don't think I don't think a blanket ban on linear lighting. I I I don't feel like we need that when it's linear. It'd be like traditionally it would have been like a a T5 tube in a trougher like a you're talking

um when you see businesses or communities where like there is a a bar of light across top of the building top edge of the building or frames the entire building that that I think is what this is directed at is that sort of that's linear lighting It's just a single tube or a single LED strip that runs okay all the way around something typically the facade of the building. I guess I just I feel like there are ways to use that that are responsible or tasteful if you will. Um so I don't I can use it still respect.

Yeah, I I think that's a classic one that falls into both dark sky but also design, right? Um, yeah, I guess that's that's what I had. Oh, well, I will say I feel strongly that curfew should also apply to parking lots or security lighting. What we're I think what Jer Waller was talking about is it's called Ble dimming. Um that's what we do at CNC of a full brightness and then after let's say 30 minutes of no activity it goes to a lower level and then goes back to the higher level at

and that and that was a big thing that we did with residential campuses you know with you have co-eds or whatnot walking into parking lots that you needed to ramp up from a safety security kind of thing but then you when you don't need it on 90% of the time 90 whatever is kind of Would that apply to the park spaces as well? Is it safe enough for park spaces or to deter No, I think No. Yeah, I think it would be appropriate. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Two Rivers is not that bright unless there's the baseball. No, there's a bright light. Where is it?

Oh, I walk my puppy there at 5:00. It is like feel like it's daytime at Two Rivers Park. Yeah. Yeah, like over by the softball field there's this giant bright welcome aliens into the uh that outer space. When you're going across the the foot bridge and then under the railroad tracks, I would have to disagree that there's bright lights. I would say that's very dark. Well, you're saying that there could be more lighting. That's different than what she's saying. Yeah. Yeah. But yes, you're right. That tall bright light. You're right. Yeah. because you want to have safety. Yeah. But at the same time, Yeah. What is What is that all about?

I mean, it is nice because I throw the ball and you can see the ball. Yes, I know what you're talking about. 5 a.m. What the problem? That's so funny. You're a good mommy. Um, but yeah, you don't want to be blinded by the light. Unless [laughter] you're Bruce Springsteen. Yeah, I just thought I'd start a song. Was that Bruce? Was that a line? Yeah. Who knows the next line? [laughter] I know the I know the wrong routine.

I know. Exactly. Exactly. So, what you and and one I'll throw a comment in that I like that um Carolyn kind of threw out was that uh and I don't I don't think the city's necessarily the worst defender, but I think the city could be a good role model of going through that as you come through things of and going through and um whether it's Two Rivers Park, whether it's you know and and and the street lights are an interesting thing because they're historic and

but they're you know that antithesis of what we're talking about, but they're so so you I don't know how you do things, but I think it's I think it's um that would be a great that would be a great uh role model kind of thing leading forward.

I think that Joyy's idea of bringing us tangible ideas from a community that's similar to what we're trying to accomplish so that we can look at it so there's no kakami ideas out there. Um that'd be great. Yeah, I I guess I get concerned about, [clears throat] you know, the curfew context within commercial districts. Um, sorry, Commissioner Gman, you haven't gone yet. Do you want to Oh, you go. Yeah, you go ahead. You go, Connie.

I wanted to Well, a lot of things have already been said, but I do think the city is a big offender. Just being out there in the evenings and early mornings. I think that a lot of those lights um could be turned down. And maybe it's not just the city. I mean, I'm thinking about under the bridge. Under every bridge there's lights. There's um it's not just and I understand there's probably a cross between safety and keeping the unhoused from sleeping under bridges, but I don't know if that really is that helpful. Um,

and I think the same thing with the North Landing, the the intersection between safety and um, light pollution, you know. I do appreciate street lights. I think there street lights are great and I don't think that those are it's more of the under the under bridges, under the big bridge, under all the bridges. There's just so many lights and the big light at Two Rivers. [laughter]

I know used to by now. Um, and I think also downtown, like you guys said, there in in the like in in the early morning hours, we don't they don't need to have all of their signs on. So, having some sort of curfew or signage, no matter what, lighting zone they're in. I agree. The last thing is that I really wanted to bring back um the topic of what we were too proactive for 20 years ago. Like what was that? Can we like what was what did people have so many problems with? Yeah. And can we go back to some of those?

Yeah, I think um I I it's I don't remember exactly. I think a lot of it had to do with it was going to be a fairly aggressive program, especially in the residential areas. Um trying to get people to change out fixtures and bulbs and um LEDs were a million dollars.

Yeah, LEDs for a million dollars back then. No, it was like, you know, the damn lighting, the cut off, the um I think some of the commercial concerns that I think are um that we have struggled with, I'll be honest with you, on a security basis for a number of businesses in town. Um and so I think it was things like that just I think it was um you know there was a citizens group um that worked for I don't know a year or so on that. We could try to go back and dig through it and try to find it. Um, like I said, it was it was pretty, you know, it was pretty forward for the times. Um, I just think it was kind of a struggle to implement and there was enough push back in the community around it. And as you guys know, you've been up here for long enough to know that change is hard. Um, and the government telling you to do anything is generally viewed, no pun intended, in a very dim light.

Totally intended. Totally intended. No pun intended. I would I would just say good it's been weeks I've been watching [laughter] so appreciate I would just say that um you know as it relates to commercial use um and even residential use anything that would be um considered a liability for for homeowners or property insurance I would say that we would want to weigh that as well um as it relates to security. I don't know if people check on your lighting through commercial um just underwriting through insurance. So, be something to consider.

And that's and that's where I was going to

speak to is just you know choose the width of that brush appropriately as it applies in some of these districts. And um really curious what kind of examples other communities are doing in in that regard. Um, and I think Carl spoke to maybe some past kind of challenges implementing that idea. Um, so yeah, not only just as a, you know, I think we want to check in and and kind of acknowledge the bookie man a little bit with our um, businesses in town and um, solicit their feedback and um, and really kind of propose some solutions for them to uh, as part of this um, because not only the the actual real concerns that we have about, you know, um, theft or breaking and entering and just um, general male fees on our properties. Uh but also so to our property insurers, you know, I want to make sure that we're doing best practices to keep that property safe. So

yeah, one one thought I had, I think you kind of mentioned it a little bit was that, you know, how do how do you get this is a public involvement kind of thing. I mean we we have our we don't like two rivers or I don't like certain we have certain things that are that are our things and and you know I don't know all of this stuff for the you know for the commercial district or for various and I think Carl you mentioned that there was a some users groups or something like that I mean and and and it almost seems like there's different ones you know there's a different one for maybe downtown and there might be a different one for residential and

yeah and I I think you know as like it's been a long time ago. I I want to say that there was kind of an ad hoc committee that council appointed to work on it. Um that really and and they spent a lot of like I said spent a lot of time on it. Um and and so I you know I think it was a big enough change then and maybe it isn't that big of a change now because we have had lighting regulations in place and things like that but it definitely for whatever reason it becomes one of those things that the public gets really interested. I think

and there are strong feelings about um both, you know, for aggressive dark skies and for the concerns over who's in my backyard and I want my motion sensor light to come on when the bear comes through or the skunk or whatever, you know? I mean, so there's there's a lot of fees.

I think more people are going to be um familiar with the, you know, talk about keeping dark skies and there's a lot of dark sky communities in Colorado. Um, so I think we'll probably have better luck now than we did 20 years ago getting folks to sign on um in support of this, but also I would like to see other than humans some data on what it um what the lights affect. We've talked about bird migration, but what else um might we be missing that could be sort of long-term and and reaching beyond our city limits? Yeah. And 20 years ago, they didn't have security cameras that have like, you know, where you can see anything, even if it's dark out. Yeah. So,

it does seem like the police department should weigh in on safety matters and just because they probably have their own thoughts on lighting standards from a safety standpoint. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's a difference between I think this was said at city council too making it so that it's illuminated enough that you can see somebody coming and like lights just shining in your eyes. Yes. You know, then you can't see anything. See, does this gonna help you? [laughter] I think it does. We want a report. I think it does. Um a 30 pager,

you know. I I think some of the regulation changes are some certainly something we could do some more outreach on. Um you know also incentives and public outreach on an education related to this issue I think will have a big impact and certainly if there are um lights that are violating you individually I I recommend those I think you agree I wasn't even trying to be funny. I mean, I was just saying like, you know, there's certain we can certainly investigate those in terms of, you know, if we receive complaints. So, pre-ranged furniture. Um,

and maybe Pete or I don't know, like if you have a fixture that's unshielded, how expensive is it to put a shield on it? Like, does it always require getting a new fixture? Can you just go get something to cut that down? And I remember when the um what are those little swirly light ones called? Those the LEDs contact. I remember there was like campaigns where they would just like hand them out to you. So I don't know if there's like

anything where they could like have hand shields. I don't know. But each place there's some sort of campaign where you can get free ones. is still doing like right you have to go through the whole thing like Pete mentioned but you do have to fill out the application and go through this whole process then come and identify like some energy things in your house and around your house even because uh I just did it and it's not that expensive they give you all these ideas and stuff my neighbor was upset about a light so I was like let me fix that

well and I think someone mentioned about a buyback program or you know that I mean so I mean I don't think these are any answers But these are potential things I think to look at of of um and and to me it doesn't seem like you know what we haven't done it in 15 years or whatever. So we don't have to have it done, you know, in two or three months or something except for that light. It seems like doing it correctly is the I mean, you know, having process that you go through and I think we have early adopters in our city and then we have like if you could just I just noticed when the new trash cans came out how it took some people weeks to put their trash out because they were refusing to do trash. But they eventually they eventually adopt

because they otherwise the trash wasn't going to get picked up and if it if we do come to a consensus out of the city it seems like you know it's kind of in line like we're hydro powered. It's like it seems like it would be a good um that's great a good way to just again prop propagate that we're doing things right in our city um and set the example we talked about. Yeah. So, what is the next what So, what would So, get to work. Yeah. What What happens next? I mean, is Emmery or you guys going to do

Yeah. I I I think some outreach would be very important for this one in terms of, you know, for bringing forward things like curfews, um simple changes like um Kelvin standards for for lighting. I think that's pretty straightforward. That's something that we can evaluate when we're doing plan reviews. Um, but I think it will take some community outreach in terms of some of the things that will actually have the the the big impact that that we're all looking for. I don't know. I think a lot of the downtown like I don't think they realize they leave their signs on. Like I think some of them are just like, "Oh, let me turn it off. We're in bed anyway. Who cares?" And I remember when when I was at CMC for the remember we put the we put the new signage up um

downtown, right? Yeah. Downtown on the building and we had a we had a timer that was on that that had to shut it off at I forget the time after [clears throat] candle actually equal like a light bulb. I mean it seems like candle a candle traveling that far. [laughter] That's what it is. No, I think I think this is good though. I think it's a good

and so yeah, one other thought I have is that is it, you know, we have the the water um incentives that we've done and you know that and that's you know you could argue that that's you know water is a huge big thing. But this is a similar kind of thing. you know, it's maybe not as

not quite as tangible, but it's a, you know, a lot of people would argue that it's a similar type of thing of how we drive those incentives and we've got the $2,000. You know, I think I took advantage of it last year with my landscaping and, you know, so anyway, that is is is there some sort of program that's in that realm that's I don't know. Yeah, like the the idea of incentive based um it may allow us to increase our floor a little bit like more broadly without being um too prescriptive broadly, you know, so we can potentially have more kind of design or application specific um design standards built in. So we can kind of improve as we go. um more situ situationally representative than you know um a thou shall kind of edict. Um so it's just curious what you guys may come across um as you see other ordinances and regs out there and so you too John from what you've encountered out there. Um don't need a rest of the attention right now but just as kind of a a nugget there.

I'd just like to add Garfield Clean Energy does have rebates for LED lighting at least for commercial properties. So, um, if they're upgrading, if it's a more energy efficient option, right, if they're going from high pressure sodium or or whatever to they used to give out light bulbs and stuff. Do they still do that? That I don't know. But they operate, you know, the city's Yep. rebate program. So, it's pretty good. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Emry. Um, okay. Now we're on to commissioner comments. We'll start commissioner guide. I don't have anything. You don't have anything? Just say thanks to commissioner

six years of service. It was so different back then. Yes. Was that back in the 1800s? Yeah. When you actually just had a before co. Oh yeah. Yeah. That's a long time ago. Yeah. When we had to see everything twice, remember before. Well, you've done a heck of a job. Yeah. Seriously. Thank you very much. I mean, take everyone up here. Well, but you bring you bring us, you know, a good energy and a specific focus. Absolutely. In a good No, it's a good Thank you very much. very detailed. Been an honor. Yeah.

Okay. I have something other it's I'm going to ask a question and it's nothing you can give me an answer on right now and it's not a simple matter but that space by Walmart that everybody is always I I know some of it's like owned privately how I think there's BLM jurisdiction um where there's all the unhoused folks could the city ever develop that into mountain bike trails B construction on them. You know, there was RMBL took a look at it and it just really wasn't train that they wanted to do anything with. There was some discussion around

hiking trails back there. Yeah, I think the biggest concern from the city standpoint is that they already own a lot of property that they can't maintain currently. And so acquiring additional um property and and adding that to a long list of things that they're trying to maintain is just kind of more of a lift than they wanted to take on is has historically been kind of where council's been at. I mean, it comes up every two years every time we get a new council. So, I'm sure we'll be talking about it sometime in the next year again. I mean there's because you know it is an ongoing problem in the community obviously.

Um so I imagine it will come up again but that was we really um when Shelley Cal was on council we really dug into that issue and looked at a lot of different things. Um and and that was kind of the outgrowth is that hiking trails are probably appropriate but wasn't really something that looked developable for like mountain bike trails necessarily. Okay. Just get that machine in there. Joy I can downhill right there. Yeah, [laughter] I totally and money can do anything. I know. I know. I am a friend downhill track. I have my good friend developed a bunch of the trails out of the hogback. So, I'm I'm always like ah Ben.

No. Oh, anything else? And I just echo again. It's been such an honor serving with you. Yeah. Thanks for joining. So good. I'm gonna miss you. Um, I don't have anything other than I'll throw one thing out. I think we should, for those that are interested, we should go have a drink if Mrs. Sipper is Yeah, Miss Zipperly up for it. I would as long as I can grab some Chinese food and put it in the car.

Oh. Um, yeah. Well, I'm gonna take some time and continue with a lot of other volunteer projects that I'm currently working on. um still on the preservation commission, so I know I'm kind of coming up on the end of that term, too. I uh see what happens with that. Um but I [clears throat] have got a lot of other historic things that I'm excited to work on. I did some presentations for the museum last week and uh presentations for the botanical gardens that I'm working on now, which you guys might eventually see. So, enough about that. Uh but it's been a pleasure to serve with you all and including all the staff and and uh all the commissioners here. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Appreciate your time and yeah, coaching you early on and yeah, it's been kind of just nice sitting alongside you. So, thank you. Yeah, it's been good. People took me under my wing. I had no training at all. They just like threw me in here. It wasn't even like I didn't know what a DS was, you know. Yeah. After after that, there's been a little bit more training for a new commissioner. So, that is that is good. Yeah, you've been a pleasure. I'm gonna miss you sitting up here. I can't wait to see the greenhouse, though. Yeah. Yeah, that looks really rad. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Okay, I guess that's it for us. So, Trent, great.

Um, Carolyn, thank you very much. It was nice to that you were still here when I came back, [laughter] left and it's great to have familiar. No, it it it to you all. This is a huge service that you provide to the community. So, thank you for that. Um and your service on HPC is still mandatory. So, keep ups. Um next month, have gym passes though, huh?

Oh, no. Passes for them. Um because that'll never mind. Um next month we have a couple big applications coming. We've had a little bit of a lull here. Um um we we also anticipate maybe having a work session regarding landscaping um that's forthcoming. Some standards mandated from the state that we need to incorporate into our code, but then others that we're trying to get some clarification on. Um we'll see we'll probably put that last on the agenda so that you know if you want to maybe not address that in the evening after two other land use hearings that may take some time that we can we could kick it to another month. Uh but so just um anticipate those one that may draw a lot of attention. Um so just giving you warning now.

You can't give us any uh pack. Yeah, I mean it's going to be for um development of a new building downtown. So a mixeduse building. Eighth Street. No fact. Well, okay. Like what? No, that's We'll leave it there. We'll leave it there. My line. We'll leave it there. Stop. I'll be looking in the newspaper. But uh yeah, thank you