Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I smell all that yesterday. need to be turned on. Thank you. Okay. Um we're going to call the May 27th regular meeting of the PNZ Commission to order. Um this meeting is held in person as well as via Zoom. Um dial in number is 719-359-4580. Webinar ID 863 85550264 and we have um two alternates to seat. So do I need to make a motion on that? Okay. So I'll make a motion to seek Marjorie Lair and Patrick Corkerin. [Music] Um, Commissioner Connorton, are you making the motion? Yes, I'll make a motion to seat both alternates. Commissioner Cowan, second. Okay, we have a second. Uh, we'll just do a a verbal vote. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, welcome. Um, okay. Now we'll do roll call. Commissioner Leer present. Commissioner Connorton. Commissioner Cowan here. Commissioner uh Chair Waller here. Commissioner Hton here. Commissioner Gman. Commissioner Corkran here. We have a quorum. Okay. Um the minutes uh are not complete. So we will postpone the minutes till next meeting from the April 22nd meeting. Um Okay. So, now we're looking for any

comments from citizens appearing for items not on the agenda. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to new items. Um, we're going to reverse the order from what the agenda is. Um, and we will do planning file number 10-25, the design variance for 515 11th Street. Um, so Emory, before you begin, Chair Waller, I believe you have a mic from Commissioner Damon. Diamond. Oh. Um, do we have anyone that needs to recuse themselves? I need to recuse myself. I live within the 300 ft circle and I got a letter. And you got a letter. Okay. I got the letter. You got the letter. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, so Emry Ellington, Community Development Department. I'll be sharing my screen for a presentation. Okay. Uh so the item today is planning file 1025 and it is a design variance for 515 11th Street. Uh and so just a little overview. Uh it's consideration of two design variances. One is for location of a garage access accessing the street instead of the alley. And then the second design variance is for roof pitch less than 612 in the downtown core. And this is all in relation to a

remodel project of an existing single family home. Uh the applicant is Mark Noel Architects on behalf of the homeowners. Uh the property is located in the downtown core and is in the RM2 residential multif family limited zoning district and it's surrounded uh by other residential unit uses um on all sides. And so just putting things in context, you can see the yellow there, that's the subject property. So it's on the corner of 11th and Bennett. Um it is so again the star you see that tan color that's that RM2 zoning district. And so that's with that zoning map. And then also again, uh, when I say it's in the downtown core, that yellow dotted line is what that area is. And so that's a geographic area that's used for a lot of design standards. And where that comes from is when the city of Glenwood Springs was originally platted. That's the area of all the original lots. So basically, uh, the start of Glenwood. Um, a little more context. This is an aerial view of the property. And so you can see the existing home with the existing garage with their existing access going out to Bennett and then to the west property line you see the alley. And so that's how it exists today. Uh here are some just some street views um on from 11th and then from Bennett seeing the alley there driveway here. And then these renderings are from the applicant. And so this is what how the property looks now. And then this is with the proposed addition the new garage and its access to Bennett. And so for starters, uh each variance will be its own action item. So it will be voted on separately. Uh so action item number one is approval of a design variance for um relief from it. There's actually three different sections of code uh that call for this

standard for when you have a new garage to have it access in an alley. Um, so that's what's has been triggered here is code requires when you have a new garage in the downtown core, you need to use the alley instead of the street. And so staff on this one has recommended a denial uh with findings and conditions in the staff report. And so the actions for this would be um one is deny the variance. Uh two is approve the design variance using alternative motions. of presenting your findings on why uh you feel that it meets the criteria. Uh you can also add additional conditions. Uh and then also if uh commission finds there's not enough information to make a decision, you would continue the item to the next meeting. So that's just what the options are. And again kind of an overview. The white areas are the areas for the roof pitch that are subject to the design variance. And then the garage with its access to Bennett, that's the second variance. So that's on the proposed design, the two items under consideration. Um, so I'll talk about the the garage access var design variance first. And so what the reason why this has been triggered is we have residential design standards. And anytime you have an addition that's a certain percentage bigger than what's what exists, which is 20%, all of these standards apply. And so part of why we're here today is because the size of the addition has has made all of this be applicable. Um so where that shakes out is the existing home is about 1,700 square f feet and then the new proposed is about 4,500 and so 20 a 20% addition would be 2,000. So that's why this section is applicable just for starters. And then what the standards are in code. Uh the first two references, those are specific to downtown core. So because

this property where it's located, these are the code um references and these are the code sections for what the variances for. Um so off- streetet parking areas that don't connect to an alley are prohibited within residential neighborhoods. Uh front-loading garages are inconsistent with the historic character of downtown residential neighborhoods and are prohibited. So those two are downtown for specific. And then also in another section in residential design standards, it just states where an alley exists, a new garage shall connect to it. And so since this is a new garage with access going to Bennett instead of the alley, that's the purpose. That's why the variance is required. And so the reason for this design standard, um there's a couple of reasons why this has been put into code. And so one is to reduce conflict between the street and vehicles that are backing out of driveways. And that's in order to reduce conflict between pedestrians, you know, cyclists, cars, you know, just thinking this is the view um if you're facing uh south on Bennett. And so here would be the subject property. And then you can see just in this small stretch of Bennett, there'd be four conflict points where backing vehicles out would conflict with traffic. Uh a second reason is to encourage a better pedestrian environment. So oftent times when you have curb cuts going through the street you get situ situations like this where people are parking across the sidewalk. So that's a second reason. And then another reason uh why code is requiring this and the intent of this is also to increase the number of available on street parking spaces. And so this is across the street from a subject property. And this is actually an old curb cut that you can see isn't really being used anymore but it's still been painted yellow. So this is a this is an on on street parking space that's not available to anyone. And so the idea with the intent of code is is if garage access is coming from the alleys then there's more on a street parking available uh made available. And so for reference uh this aerial all the yellows

are all the existing curb cuts on this block of Blake and Bennett. And so you can see here's the subject property and it's theirs. There's a couple others on this side, couple others on the other side of the street. If we go over to Blake, there's a couple. And then here, this section of Palmer, there aren't any. And so here, you can see the sidewalk has a clear path all the way through and then a lot less places of conflict. So that just puts things in context in the neighborhood. And all of this area would be within considered within the downtown core. Uh so one aspect of the review tonight is a design variance. And so this is a little bit different. Um, planning and zoning commission has worked with some variance applications last couple months, including ones for signs. And so the way these criteria work is a little different. It's designed to be a little more flexible. Uh, and so instead of having seven criteria where the application needs to meet all seven, you have a mix. And so you have section A, the application needs to meet all three. And then you have section B where the application needs to meet at least four. Does not need to meet all of them. Uh so that's where this is a little different than a standard variance. And so I'll go through uh staff analysis on the criteria here. And so again, so for the garage access variance, um staff finds two out of the three for section A. Uh and just that in leaving that curb cut there with the new garage, uh the intent of code, those three things I mentioned aren't being really met. Um but then staff also found that this is not harming the public health. It's not violating any building or fire code requirements. So for here this section staff is finding two out of three uh where for approval you need to meet all three and then moving on to section B and this was included in the staff report. So the only criteria where staff found that the application met section B was that's the minimum variance and so the applicants proposing using the existing curb cut. They're not making it any bigger and so really as far as conditions on the street nothing would

change. Um it wouldn't be improved um per the intent of the code uh but that curb cut would stay as it is today. So that's sums up the recommendation for the first design variance uh for the driveway. And then the second one is a design variance for roof pitch. And for this one, staff has recommended approval with the findings and conditions on pages 8 and n of the staff report. And actions are the same as action item one. And so for this one, uh where does this come from? So in code, and this is all specific to the downtown core. And so this is only for those properties within that yellow area in the map. And so in this area, a minimum roof pitch of 612 is required. And then you can see uh different roof forms. So the idea is that any new infill in these neighborhoods is compatible with its neighbors. And this being the older part of Glenwood, you see older, more traditional styles of roofs. And so to give you a visual uh roof pitch uh so it's calculated usually and it's usually expressed in a ratio where the first number describes the rise and then the second is just the span. So then you get your slope. So anything six or higher you can see here ends up being a steeper roof pitch and anything less than six which would not be allowed in the downtown core is more of a flatter roof. And then the reason uh which you know you see historically is historically if it was colder the wetter the environment you'd want to have a steeper roof. So it would get rid of the snow shed the rain and then in drier places you know you can you could build a flat roof because you didn't have the same rain, ice and snow. Um over time you know building technology has advanced you can do a flat roof in a place like Colorado. Um but given that in the historic area of Glenwood a lot of those are older homes they tend to be steeper roof lines. And so that's where this design standard is coming from. And you can see it you these are all examples of houses in downtown in that downtown core area. And

you can see where there's the steeper pitches. And so again, for this proposed design, the majority of the roof lines and really the ones that are dominant and catch your eye from the street, they're all greater than 612. And so the only areas that are less is this small area where it's pretty much connecting what you have existing for the mid part and then a couple of the dormers which are almost 612s. So these are very very close to meeting the standard and so for this one staff has recommended approval uh meeting all three of section A uh because on the whole the design is is it's looking to be compatible with its neighbors. Uh the majority of the roof lines the dominant ones are greater than 612. So staff finds all three criteria met here and then same findings is that the the design meets the intent of the regulation um to match its neighbors. uh with the only two not being found is that it would not produce an undue hardship. Um you know would does not disallow the person from maybe doing an addition just how it looks. Um but overall it meets the intent. Uh and so that's with the recommendation for the the roof variance as approval. There were two letters of support from neighbors which were included in the packet. Uh, as far as reviewing agencies, um, fire department, neither the driveway access or the alley access would really prohibit their emergency response. It's on a corner lot. If there were to be an emergency, fire department could respond adequately. Uh, engineering department. Um, so if this variance were approved, the applicant would move on to building permit. And as part of the building permit submitted, that's a there's a lot of different engineering studies and documents they'd have to submit about drainage uh, with that building permit. And then also worth to note, uh, Bennett Avenue, if you have a single family home on Bennett Avenue, it's a it's called a local street, and that's based on traffic volumes, which allows you to back into the street. Um, there are some areas of town, some streets, which because of a higher traffic volume, you can't do that. But

here in this location, that's fine. Uh, and then public works department. Um, there's a longterm plan to redo all of the alleys in the city. And so at some point um and again with all the scheduling of all the different city projects, this alley would be redone. Uh right now it's not I can't tell you exactly when that will happen, but that's part of a much larger city initiative. And so with this application, there are suggested conditions for approval uh stated here. Um so most of these are pretty standard uh just that the applicant complies with staff comments prior to building permit. Um any future changes, you know, would require adherence to code. Um this is a pretty standard. Um if planning and zoning commission finds they need to add any additional conditions that can be a part of your motion uh and discussion. Uh and so again so you're looking at two action items. The first one is for garage access uh to the street instead of the alley. And that has been a recommendation for denial by staff and then the second one is for the roof pitch. And that one has been uh recommended for approval. And then just as a reminder, if you do make a motion um finding the opposite of what the staff report recommended, you do need to have uh make an alternative motion and just provide your findings in each specific criteria. So that sums that up. Thanks, Emry. Um, okay. Now, questions from commission, uh, Commissioner Conton. Thanks, Emory. Can you show the picture of the current property and then do that overlay picture just one more time? Yeah, one second. Be super helpful.

kind of like the eye doctor. You're gonna have to go back. Yeah. Here. Okay. So, that's it. Current and then proposed. proposed. I see. Okay. Oh, that's it. Thanks. Okay. Commissioner H. Thanks, Emry. I know it was in our packet, but could you just elaborate on the code definition of a hardship as to compare to what, you know, the common usage of it might be? Actually, I'm going to bring up code Don't have it verbat on memory. Okay. So a hardship as defined in code is a condition by which the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under existing regulations subject to showing proof under subsection 7070 which is the section um and the criteria described for the design variance. So um so when we're talking about that second set of requirements that's what we should be thinking of when we think of a hardship the section D. I'm going to go to those criteria one second. So I would say yes. Um it does call it out with this specific one. Um the strict application of the code standards would produce an undue hardship. I would like to point out that that's one of the six. And so part of the idea with the design variance also is to have a little more

flexibility in review and and actually design variance was added a couple years ago in recognition that for some things um so design variance applies to residential design, landscaping, um those types of things. And so having a little more flexibility in reviewing that as opposed to a standard variance which really gets to more of your u how tall is a building, where your setbacks are, those types of things. So, so correct like hardship for that one specific since that's how you should evaluate that one. Other ones um you know such as benefits to the community are equivalent. That's where you should be thinking more of like the intent of those standards and how this design approaches that. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Cowen. Thank you, Emory. Um I guess just to confirm, uh the curb cut is going to stay the same, correct? Okay. So here, go to the picture. So this right here, as you see it, that that would remain there. And so they would basically flare out the driveway once it's on their property. Sure. The curb cut would just stay. Okay. And then the alleyway improvement, can you speak generally for what we could what this neighborhood could could anticipate down the road with what that would look like? So hard surfacing. uh similar to some of the work that's been done down here um down very downtown blocks. Um maybe not exactly the same, but probably improved surfacing. Um possibly. Uh so right now when you go in that alley, uh the gravel area that you would drive on isn't necessarily the full width of what the actual rideway is. So there could be the potential for not only would you have a hard surfacing, that drivable area could probably be larger than what exists. Okay. if you know at at time that it gets done. Sure. Thank you.

Other questions? Um I have a couple questions. So one one is uh and I think you talked about this but I wasn't sure that I got it. So there is the old I'll use the old term grandfathering kind of word. So I and and I might be incorrect but what what is is there an is there a percentage of building that's disturbed and then that moves into you have to bring everything up to code what is that? So that would be the 20%. 20%. Yeah. So, so here, so if the addition was only at 2,000 ft total, when you're said and done, we wouldn't be here tonight because it wouldn't have been triggered that whole section. Okay. Um, and we're, you know, what what is do the math for me really quick. So, what what what percentage are we? 260. We're at what? 260. So, we're a little over 20%. Okay. Um, and then then the other question I have was on uh, you know, I'm a little bit familiar with that with that area up there. Um, and so, so what what are the grade changes? You know, everything we're looking at, you know, is like a two-dimensional. So, grade changes for the front. And I know, you know, when you're showing like there's no driveway cuts. Um Palmer, I think that I think it drops down. So it doesn't make sense to have driveways from back in the day when they did those. But so anyway, I'm just kind of probing at that a little bit. Yeah, I would I would guess that's probably why no one made curb cuts on Palmer because there is as you go further up the grades more. So they just decided to go from the alley. And then as far as it relates to this specific lot, you can see a little bit in this image where you know Bennett's over here

and here's the alley and how it slowly you know over course of the lot it does have a grade change which is why there is a retaining wall back there. So then there's road cuts on Bennett and then how how does it how does the grade change go in the alley or that sort of thing? Is it? Uh, so as you go down this alley, you are going down towards the river in that direction. That answers your question. Um, well, I I guess I'm my question is more kind of the lot back to the alley. So from Bennett back to the alley is that and I'm I I guess I'm kind of poking at a hardship kind of thing. Is as well I can bring up the applicant had pictures in the application of that. How speak to that too. Okay. Um, I could let the applicant maybe talk about that. Okay, that that sounds good. Um, and I think you answered my other question, so I don't have any other questions. Anyone else? Okay. Thanks, Emry. Um, okay. Would the applicant like to speak? And if you could state your name and who you represent, all that sort of thing, it'd be great. There we there. Hi, thank you. My name is Mara Schultz. I'm the project manager for the architecture firm uh on behalf of the owners Sarah and Justin Winholz for 515 11th Street variance on the garage and the roof pitch. The uh address is here. the code that we're talking about there is three uh mentions but we've got uh 070 04080B3 talking about in the downtown core where we can't generally have a garage come off of a main street if there's an alleyway. Uh our request is obviously to

maintain the garage access from Bennett Avenue instead of the alley. The homeowner has been there for years. They are using this driveway. They use it every day. they use it um and want to continue using that. They have two large vehicles and we'll get into why that's problematic here soon. So, the first reason that we're asking for this variance is on the survey from the city plat that alleyway records at 15 ft. The usable space where you can see those kind of tread marks, that gravel is about nine and a half, maybe 10 if you're hitting the leaves on either side. So, it it is significantly reduced than what it shows on a, you know, a a plat map. There are um obstructions. So, speaking to that, and I do have some pictures, too. The retaining wall is above three feet tall. So the home's grade is very but to Bennett and when you get back to the alleyway there is a significant drop to the back of that alleyway. And so right now we have great water retainage. Everything stays on on that lot. But the retaining wall to that back alleyway is a little bit over three feet tall. So it is quite a grade that we would have to pitch for a driveway. Oh, there's also I do have a picture, but there's also a fence potentially even in in the 15t allowable area right across from the retaining wall. So, even if you wanted to make a turn, you could potentially be hitting the neighbor's fence. I do have a picture of that. So, that retaining wall is our biggest issue. We don't, you know, we it's aging. We would rather not touch it. It does also go onto a neighboring property. So, we don't have technical control. We couldn't even touch their

side of it if we wanted to without approval, etc. Um, so it's one of those things where if it's not broke, don't fix it. And the cost to fix it is going to be very high, upwards of $100,000 to redo the entire retaining wall, which would have to be done. As you can see on this bottom picture, this is still the property of this corner lot. It runs the entire length of that property. And when it meets 11th Street, it's still about a foot tall. So there it you would have to run it across the the length of the property. Um we're concerned about drainage issues. There is part of the code where we do have to put some dry wells in for drainage to keep all of our water on the property. Um that's something that we would have to do if the grade was flat because of our imperous slot coverage. If we impose a driveway with a steep grade, obviously we'll do our best to direct water away from it, but the reality of it is a twocar driveway at 18 ft, 20 ft wide. You're going to have a significant amount of melt, water, rain coming into that alleyway. The alleyway is okay. It's it's decent. Maybe the owners will speak differently, but there are some ruts. It does get kind of weathered, if you will. So, we're worried about water going into that alleyway and having some some uh issues with the maintenance of the alley. And we don't know the schedule yet of when that's going to be asphalted or hard surfaced, etc. Uh the other reason is there are so many houses uh on this street that have driveways going onto Bennett. I know staff's recommendation is to not have multiple people pulling into that street, but as a local street with the amount of traffic that it gets, they're stilling still allowing people to back out onto that street. You know, we think this would be different if we're proposing, you know, if the garage was currently in the alley and we're

proposing to move it to the front, but it is currently in the front and it's currently being used. And that curb will still maintain a cut there. And they'll put yellow on it, I believe, as Emory said, and then it won't even be able to be used to park for street parking in front of it. This is that fence that I was mentioning earlier. Uh that's just right up against the property. And again, a longer, larger view of that retaining wall for the property. I will mention because I know Sarah will kill me if I don't, but there is a very established garden right here in the corner of this property that they would like to maintain. Uh very large planters, garden, flowers, etc. Uh that we would like to maintain for the neighborhood as well. Uh we think we're not meeting any harm to public health and safety. Um we believe we conform with the comp plan. We don't have any building or fire code violations. Um, we think advance is the intent of the code in the sense of there are so many houses on the front property on on Bennett that have those driveway cuts that we're we're not trying to recreate a wheel here. We're not trying to ask for something that doesn't already exist. The site has exceptional topography again with that retaining wall. If if if we were to slope down, it would be significant. uh it would benefit the community by reducing risk and preserving character. The reducing risk is right on that corner on Benad and 11. There's no stop sign and so the street parking if if if they were to go for an alleyway parking and garage area, they wouldn't be able to use it. And I have a slide to show that based off of U-turn, they wouldn't be able to use it easily. So, they're going to they're going to park on the street. And so we're going to be occupying more street parking than we would normally by keeping the

driveway. Uh the hardship with the grading and topography of that lot is not self-created. That's those are the elements that we're dealing with. And again uh with the narrowness of that alley, they would be parking on the street um which they are not now. So we would be utilizing more street parking. This is that autoturn document. Um this is through AutoCAD. It's a program where you type in code and radius requirements for turning of a vehicle. Uh and and CAD goes through and does all the measurements for you. But this is us showing how hard it is to go to be to turn into that driveway. Even with an apron, you can't back in at all. If you see on the two right slides, if you were to go past that driveway and try and back in, you wouldn't be able to do that at all with Justin's existing truck. This is based off of his current vehicle. Those yellow orange areas demonstrate the fence essentially that he would be hitting if he were to turn. Uh the first one, which is the the one all the way to the left, showcases that we wouldn't even be able to utilize a double or two car because you just can't pull in straight or pull in all the way to the left or pull in all the way to the right without backing up again and straightening out. And then the second one is the example of what we would have to do in order to park in one side of that driveway. So it's a three-point turn just to get into their driveway off the alleyway. So those are all calculated by AutoCAD based off of the turning radius of the vehicle, which is 22 feet requirement to turn for that vehicle. The other potential future code violation that we might be running into is the grade of the driveway. So if we're keep if that grade is maintained in the backyard and we do cut that curb for that driveway, that slope is going to be 13%. Which the highest I believe

is 11. I think it's 11. Um so we would have to come back for another variance for a driveway because the the grade is too steep if we did have to do a driveway in the back based off of their topography. And that's everything I have. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Questions um from the commission. Yeah, you you did the right thing, Commissioner Conton. Uh, I have a question. So, you you're talking about the grade when if you had to put it in the alley and you're saying it's it would be, you know, a difficult um thing to meet. What What do you Because you didn't use a percentage like what would that grade be? 13 13%. 13%. What's typical? Four, five. You can get up to eight or nine. I would say that's pretty steep for a driveway, but I would say a typical driveway you want to keep under six. you start requiring linear drains when you get above 6% grade if if the grade's towards the house obviously. Um yeah, so it I would say four, five, six might be typical. It's worth mentioning that here in Glenn would um Excuse me. Could you um sorry, you need to make Yeah. Yeah. Hi, it's Mark Null. Um, it's worth mentioning that because we're in a mountainous area, an 8% driveway is fairly typical here. Here in the city, maybe four, but we do have higher. We're working on another house in West Glenwood. And we're working with SGM to do the civil engineering, and

they said we just absolutely do not want to see the driveway over 12%. And so we're trying to accommodate that with a 10% which we feel is a pretty steep driveway. So that's reinforces this idea that 13 a we'd have to come back for a variance and b it's very steep. Okay. Um here's a hard question is so um let's say you drop the garage you know that's how many trillions of dollars I don't know if you know that but but I mean that's the other thing to work with grade you know you I'm assuming that other that there's some other garages in the alley and that they're probably at the grade of the alley I don't know and then there's a step up or you know what I'm asking I do yeah With the current design that we have, it's already a split level because of grade. So, I would say it would be very weird in the in the way that they're trying to orient the house and how we have to build within those setbacks. So, you would have to jump up and then come in and then jump upstairs and have another level going downstairs into the uh basement area. So, it it would it is it architecturally possible? Yes. Would it be very weird for the lot that it is based off of the grade? Also, yes. So, so here's another point of that question would be. So, what's the grade difference between the alley and your main level at the house if you know what the height difference is above three feet. It's just over three feet. That's the retaining wall. The retaining wall and then it's a pretty level then it's pretty level after that. Correct. Okay. And then also to add as far as when you talk about driveway grades um that would be reviewed by engineering department uh variances from engineering standards are actually reviewed by engineering department. So it actually wouldn't come back to playing condition. So if and in

their standards it's 12 like Mark related about the west co house. So 12 would be the maximum uh that they would look at. Anything greater would be a variance by okay. Thank you. Um, see the retaining wall and and this isn't a question for you. It's probably for Amria, but it um is is there any idea of when the alley is scheduled for repair or is it is it where is it in the priority? I mean, it's way up not a particular date. No. Um, how old is the house? It's from the 1940s. 1940s. And we are maintaining the main original house. That was kind of the point of the remodel to speak to the roof variance a tiny bit. We wanted to maintain an historical value to the house and design. So, we are keeping the original house and then just adding on to it. We want to keep that integrity. So, your new design is complementaryary to the existing house. Okay. Um, Commissioner Hton. Um, maybe this is for Emory, but is the front yard set back off of 11th Street? Uh, no. The the front yard setback is off of Yeah, sorry. 11th. Yeah. Okay. And other than that's not how it's currently designed. What's preventing the garage from being closer to that southwest corner of the lot where there's less of a grade? It's a 20 foot setback. So, you're still going to push into that alleyway significantly and you'll still be at the higher end of that retaining wall. Does that make sense? So at the I mean there are allowed encroachments into the setback. So right here in the in the corner uh this is 11 street where those trees are. And so if we were to bring the garage up to the original house, we'd still be at about a two and a half three foot

retaining wall. Yeah. So just to clarify what you said, it is 20 ft from 11. So that would get you into the more deep part of a lot greater great difference. Okay. You good? Yep. Thank you. Um Commissioner Conton. Oops. Sorry. He um Commissioner um he already asked the question I was going to ask. Okay. Um, other questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, are are you the um I mean the next part of the thing is for public or are you are you the owner? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I think yes. come right up. I think you're a part of this. You're kind of part of the applicant. I wanted to thank you guys. Um, we've Could you state your name and Oh, sorry. My name's Justin Manoltz Springs. Um, I wanted to thank you guys for the work that you do. We've worked with planning and zoning and various councils before and I I know you have a thankless job. I appreciate everything that you guys do. I did just want to add uh to build on what Mara had said. Um, you know, one of the one of the reasons for this project, um, you know, what we're trying to do is is maintain the historical, um, you know, structure that that's been there for, you know, since 1950. And, you know, we've explored all of the different options. And, you know, it seems like this one is is the least um, you know, it accomplishes everything that we're trying to do. Um, you know, I just wanted to add on to the parking. So again, um you know, the all of the

streets, I don't know if you guys know this, um all of the streets or the entire street of Bennett and the entire street of Palmer from 12th all the way to 8th, there there are no stop signs. It's kind of it's a free-for-all. Um there's a couple of spots that have a yield sign. Um, but at that four-way intersection that we're at, you know, I don't want to say it's dangerous, and I'm not asking for any action be taken, but uh there is there's no stopping there. And uh the way that the parking is designed because there's uh on the corner of 10th Street, there's a a multifamily house there or multif family building. So, the parking is actually diagonal. Um, and if we were to park how this city wants us to park, it would be diagonal parking all the way to the to the um to the corner there. And I think actually by um by doing this, we're we're trying to help solve that problem and making it safe, make opening that sighteline and keeping cars off of the street. Um I I appreciate everything that Emry's done. I would disagree with just the safety aspect in that I think it actually is is safer to have our cars in the driveway or in the garage and backing onto that street as opposed to taking up parking on the street. Uh I in the future uh we uh would like to make the basement into an ADU um and potentially you know some of the space above the garage into an ADU and again we can accomplish that. I I know that I've come to enough of these meetings that parking is always an issue. Um, everybody's asking for a parking allowance. We're actually trying to solve our own parking problem by parking on our lot. Um, and again, by moving the requirement to have it on the alley, it just it it lacks functionality. So, I appreciate again everything that you guys are doing. Yeah. Thank you very

much. Um, so you know I I have a question and I don't know maybe it's when it comes back to us but it's on um so let's say I mean is he talked about maybe that there's an ADU would I mean so how does I kind of forget how the parking requirements are and if you're in the downtown core is that is it different than if you're not or Yeah I had a couple things um if I to clarify um first your question. Uh, so their parking requirements, I'm going to bring up the site plan here. Uh, the parking requirements would be one for the single family dwelling and then one for the ADU. So, and is that is that on the on the property, not correct, not street park on the property. And so here as the house exists, you have the onecar garage and then a driveway with one uh and then the proposed project would have a two-car garage and effectively two parking spaces here. And then another thing I wanted to clarify is that uh so if the project were to, you know, conform to code and build a garage from the alley, part of that project would involve public works department would require this to be abandoned and a curb report so it would be available. Um but so again, so the proposed design would have plenty of parking for a single family in ADU. You you would be required two and this would have one, two, uh and then additional ones in the driveway that would not be able to be counted officially because they're tandem, but they're there. So, so what you're saying is that is that if you did an ADU, um, none of this parking the way it is there would work. So, the two required

spaces are in the garage. And then the way that code is worded, uh, a tandem parking space is considered a parking alternative. and you can only use parking alternatives for 30% of your parking requirements. So when you get to doing a single family home in an ADU, you really can't use a tandem space because that's 50%. So the two in the driveway would not be able to be counted towards your parking requirement, but they are there and people would use them. Yeah. Okay. Meet that requirement. Correct. Yeah, they would have sufficient. Could you could you restate what she said? Uh the question was is if uh for a single family home in an ADU if the proposed design would have the required off streetet parking. That's correct. It would have. Okay. Okay. Um any more questions for the applicant? Okay. Let's let's bring this back. Oh. Um first off, are there is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? And we have two we had two letters of support from the public. I guess that's what we had. So see no one online. Okay, I'll close the public part of the hearing. Um, okay. Let's open it up to we want to make a motion for conversation. Commissioner Conton. Um, so should we do the We're going to do the two action items separately. Correct. So, um, I'm wondering if, uh, I can do them backwards a little bit. So, to, uh, if I could make a motion, um, for the design

variance criterion action item two, the roof pitch. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance criteria. Um, and um, yeah, with and with staff uh, recommendations with the findings and conditions on pages 89. Findings and conditions. Sorry. Okay. It's a motion by Commissioner Conton. Do I have a second? Commissioner Callen. Second. Okay. Motion and a second by Commissioner Cowan. [Music] Um, any comments on variance number two? Okay, let's call the question on there too. The motion passes unanimously. Okay, do I need to note that she recused herself? Uh, I think we did at the beginning, so it's fine. Okay. Um, now let's go to variance number one. Commissioner Conson. Okay. So for design variance design dgn variance criterion action item number one uh for garage street access.

Um so to consider approval of a variance for relief from this section 070.040.080. I would make a motion to approve the garage street access. Um, and I'm going to read why. So, um, for section A, it has to meet all three. So, the variance requested does not harm the public health, safety or welfare. I and then for number two um it speaks to the comprehensive plan which we know is um stated purpose and intent of the code including specific regulations for which the variance is sought. Um in the comprehensive plan we talk a lot about um you know historic structure and um maintaining um conformity and and how things look in the downtown core. And I would say that in this case it does meet it. Um and then uh for section B um I would say it meets number two. The subject property does have an exceptional topography especially with some of the discussion tonight um concerning grading and drainage and things like that. Um especially when we're talking in the downtown core. I know some other um alleys have retaining walls that are particularly um difficult, but this one I pretty sure it's been there since like the 50s. Um and then the next one I would say uh number three, the variance requested results and benefits to the community that are equivalent or exceed. The reason why I bring this one up is because of the discussion from the architect for um uh it's a historical structure how they're really trying to maintain that intent as well as I was uh keep the garden and something that they recognize as a wellestablished garden

and I have walked down that street and um I think that would be uh something really that would really bring that neighborhood up. And then number six, um the strict application of the code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship. Um I mean when we're talking about grade and we're talking about um you know I I mean I can't even I don't think I can bring up the ADU but uh to add another 100k onto um having to redo retaining wall. They're not sure when the alley is going to, you know, be completed. And I know that they're starting from this end of town going to the other end of town. Um, and it could take potentially years. I don't think so. But, um, I can't predict that time frame. So, um, so that would meet at least four of that. Okay. Thank you, D. Is there a a second? Uh second. Okay. Commissioner Cowen. A second by Commissioner Callen. Okay. Um conversation. Commissioner Conton. I'm talking a lot. I'm sorry. Um I I mean you know it doesn't even though it doesn't really meet the criterion perfectly um I do believe that you know that meeting these things will minimize any negative impacts that you know um if with the existing layout of the property um you know I feel like we're t tailoring this to a very specific case. So, um, yeah, that's I guess it's more of a comment. Comments are okay. Okay. Sorry, Commissioner Hton. I had a question for Emory. I guess I should have asked it earlier, but is this property eligible or would this

development be eligible for fee and loo for storm water? Uh, let me think for the associated development. Uh yeah, if we're talking about drainage and drywalls on site, there's a fee in L for that. So engineering would review it. Generally, most properties like something like this where you you are have a site that doesn't have a ton of coverage and then you'd be covering a lot of it would be so on. Okay. Thank you. Um and frankly, I don't think I can support an historic curb cutting the intent of the comprehensive plan. Um, yeah. I I I think and I I I can't say with certainty, but I would suspect this is not exceptional topography for the zone district. I would guess through other lots with similar grades between the alley and and the lot. Okay. other comments. I'm just going to share the criteria so you can all be looking at that. Okay. Thanks, Emry. Uh, Commissioner Conton, I mean, I I would agree it's probably not in exceptional shape just from like when you showed the, you know, the aerial view, but it does feel not feel, but what was stated is that um the

topography could make it um exceptional. Um, so, uh, it that road does go down. There definitely is no stop sign when you're coming down that street from there. Um, and and I've actually, um, pulled out of one, two, three houses up. And um yeah, I mean if there's a car parked there or anything like that, I mean someone will that it it's I'm not going to say it's dangerous either, but it definitely was a little sketchy because my 16-year-old was driving and almost got us all killed. But other than that, but that that again is just another comment. Okay. Um any other comments? Okay, I have a couple comments. I I think I support um the variance as well and um for me on number two on the first three it says the variances required requested is in general conformance I think it's in general conformance with the comp plan with the stated purpose you know it's not the comp plan is um not an exact science as we all know but I think it's in general conformance I think um you know the AR architect and the owners trying to do a good job of keeping the historic presence of it. The retaining wall, you know, there there are other there are other garages, you know, on the alley, I think. So that, you know, that that makes it interesting, but that retaining wall is um in illre, I think, and trying to do the retaining wall. I guess one thing that I would um so Commissioner Connorton talked about in section B number two as an exceptional shape

topography building. I agree with that one. Um number three benefits to the community. [Music] Um I may be more shaky on that one. Number four, where it's the variance is necessary and appropriate to make possible reasonable use of the land or the structures on the property. I guess I think I think to me that one is is um one. So for me two, four, five Emmery has already and then six is is the un is the undue hardship. So to me, those are the four on section B and and I think the general conformance um works for me on section A for the three. So anyway, I don't know if um if we if if we need to amend the motion on for that or or does it matter? I mean, we have we have four stated already for section B. So say it's kind of up to you if you want to ask for a friendly amendment to restate it or we can go with it the way it is. Yeah. Um it would appear that the movement doesn't want to amend her motion. Okay. Okay. So I think we're good then. Um any other comments? Okay. Let's call the question. Let's do the vote here. Okay. The motion passes 4 to six with uh Chair Waller voting yes.

Um, Commissioner Corkran voting yes, Commissioner Leer voting no, Commissioner Hton voting no, Commissioner Cowan voting yes, and Amy uh, Commissioner Conton voting yes. Okay. Um, here we go. It's only with my voting pool like you know online. That's easier to see. can see. I like the color. Okay. Um, okay. I'd like to thank the applicant and thank you, Emory, for all your work. I appreciate it very much. Okay. Thank you. Um, should I go get Yeah, we can get Commissioner Got one of those restaurant buzzers like Yes. Then you have to do better. She actually has Dang it, they're taken. Yes. So, you'd have to do you could motion. Yeah. We could we could have changed the criteria. It's too bad. She was Oh, okay.

Open. [Music] You want to say something? No. Exactly. It says that it's hard these days. Okay. Um we'll move on to the next item. Um code amendments to title 070 related to ADUs and design standards. Hannah, good evening. Planning and zoning commission. Hannah Klasman, director of community and economic development, back with the standard suite of code changes uh before you tonight. Um, so to refresh your memory, um, code amendments can be initiated by staff, code amendments can be initiated by planning and zoning commission, and code amendments can be initiated by city council. This one is staff initiated. And usually when we're initiating a code change, it's because we've seen um a variety of applications come through that and in our application of the code, things aren't quite lining up. Um some of the amendments before you tonight we have actually discussed when we went over design standards. Most of you um the new members if you have questions on those sections feel free to ask um for clarification. But so some of these are items that you guys gave feedback on for possible changes and staff is now getting them back in front of you for review. So I'm going to share my screen and basically just use the staff report so that we can walk through those code changes and the language that we're proposing. And it's just one action item tonight, but if you guys, you know, if there's some of the proposals that you

like and some that you don't, you can amend that motion. Commissioner Connor, uh, so that you're, you know, you can, you can break them up so that if you want to propose approval of some and not all, you can do that as well. So, I'm going to share that we've got it on the screen and I'm just going to walk through the different sections with you guys. Feel free to interrupt me with questions on how uh code amendments work or the specific um code section that we're talking about. So, as far as review authority, planning and zoning commission is a recommending body. So, whatever you do tonight, staff will take your recommended your recommendation of approval or denial or change it all together to city council for their final review and possible approval or whatever they decide to do. Um, but your comments and work on this is very important because you guys know the code the best. Planning and zoning commission does the heavy lifting when it comes to code amendments. So, I hope I've primed you for tonight's work. Um, so first off, we're going to talk about accessory dwelling units. Um, and this is actually hearkening back to a different code amendment that staff made regarding landscaping. And in the application of that new landscaping code, we've seen something that's not lining up as far as when a new ADU comes in, what they have to do as far as our new landscaping code. And so the focus of this one is on applicability of accessory dwelling units in section 70450 which is our landscaping screening and fencing. The code amendment that we did before was around water wise standards and really conservation of water. So we focused on um improved irrigation methods uh the prohibition of high uh high water use turf grasses um and a variety of other suite of things

that's meant to reduce the amount of water used for landscaping um not only in commercial and multif family but what we changed was single and duplex uses that was previously exempt. So when we did that, single family uses include accessory dwelling units. So that made accessory dwelling units trigger this section of code they where they previously had not. Um and we did kind of think at the time, you know, we'll review this as it goes to make sure that it works. So what we've discovered is accessory dwelling units are coming in. they trigger the landscaping the new landscaping code and it makes the whole property have to come up to the landscaping code uh which staff believes is overly burdensome and not quite the intent of what the landscaping plan was meant to do. Um and so this proposal is meant to amend that. So we'll go to the proposed amendment language here. So this is going to live in section 70450 in the landscaping screening and fencing. Every section of our code has an applicability section and then an exemption section that identifies this triggers it, this does not trigger it. So, we're adding language uh item D there. I'm going to zoom in a little bit more, maybe less. Um item D is adding accessory dwelling units under the exemption section with some specifications and clarification. This will also make it easier for staff. So I interior conversion ADUs shall be exempt from subsection 704050 C3 water efficient landscape standards. This is how we've been interpreting the code, but we want it written so that it's clear going forward. If you're doing an interior uh ADU, so it's all inside the footprint, you're converting a basement or something like that, landscaping

standards do not apply. We have interpreted it to be that way. I wanted clear. So that's the first one. And then two, detached or expansion ADUs. So if you're adding on to a building, it's attached, but it's an expansion. Only the new or reveated landscaping proposed shall comply with subsection water efficient landscape standards. What that means is the major change when someone is proposing a detached ADU, the ground that they disturb that they are reveating or any new landscaping that they are proposing as part of the accessory dwelling unit must comply with the code. But the rest of the property around the single family home that is undisturbed would not need to come to code. And this is interactive, so throw me your questions. I see one. Commissioner Cowan. Um, Commissioner Cowan. Thank you, Hannah. Yeah, just just curious when when was the last time the water efficient landscape standards were looked at or reviewed. Um, they have not been updated since they were adopted. I believe I did that in 2021. Oh, so fairly recent. They're they are fairly recent. Yes, they were post I know they were post Grizzly Creek Fire. Okay, which is what uh started that conversation. Um, so Hannah, should should we just and maybe you said this already. Should we just approve or give you feedback? I guess approve them as we go through versus having to come back to them. That works for me if it works for you. Yeah. Then it's all fresh in our mind. Um I think the one last thing that I'll mention around the ADUs um that has come up but it's not something that staff is proposing for a change um is also uh park uh nope sidewalk requirements. Sorry, I meant to bring this up just for your discussion. So, a lot of the times

when we're looking at ADU changes, it's because in this case, um, redoing all of your landscape for an entire single family home because you're putting in an ADU is also very cost prohibitive to the accessory dwelling unit. So, we want to always be looking at code and making sure if we can make changes to make it more um cost-effective to build ADUs that doesn't uh, you know, go against the intent of our code, those are the changes that we want to make. It has been suggested that we also look at the sidewalk requirement. ADUs also trigger a sidewalk to go in. Staff is not proposing that change, but if you want to provide feedback on that, it would be welcome. Uh I'm sure this is going to be a conversation with city council. Let's let's do the landscaping, but I think let's talk about the sidewalk. That's a good Commissioner Gman. Thanks, Hannah. I was wondering um this seems the inversion the interior conversion makes perfect sense to me the detach or expansion is it either none or all is there something in between that you could do I mean you're saying just the area that they disturbed but if we're trying to conserve water wouldn't it be better to try to get them to do part of their landscaping zeros escaping especially since the city offers $2,000 to help you with that? Is there not a I understand the point. It's a it's a well-made point. Usually when we're amending code, we try and find what we refer to as the rational nexus. Um which is the rationale behind like what you're doing and what we're requiring. And so in this instance, and you guys could possibly disagree with staff, staff doesn't find there to be that nexus between requiring additional beyond the ADU that what they're proposing as landscaping and disturbing and putting that back. Um, so we haven't proposed

that, but it's something that you guys could offer up a suggestion for. Okay. Um, how about if we let's take them one at a time and then we'll get to the do the sidewalk. Let's let's do the interior conversion. It sounds like um do we need to do a a push button motion and vote or or Yeah. Okay. Let's do it just and on the record. Okay. Commissioner Conton with a surprise. Yeah. What a shock. Listen, I just bring the motion and then it's a discussion. Uh so, okay. So, we can motion to approve section 070. 040.050 landscaping screening fencing. Um I got that would be item D, right? Yeah. Approve. Yep. Okay. with findings and suggestions. Oh yeah, with findings and suggestions. Where's your page? Six of the staff report. Page six. And I do agree with that. Okay. With with findings and suggestions on page six of the staff report. Okay. For the record. Do I have a second for that, Commissioner Kellen? Uh second. Okay. Let's have a quick conversation on that then. There Commissioner Gin, we heard what what she thought. So, um, why don't you restate, Commissioner G, what you're I think it's important to conserve water in the in the town. And

um I don't I just don't know if it's necessarily a zero or all if there could be some sort of middle ground, especially since the city currently offers money to convert your landscape to um a zeroscape. So some sort of incentive to at least do part of your landscaping. Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Conton. So, I guess I see that as like so say I wanted to convert my just my garage, which would be impossible because it's so small. Um, and then I disturbed the land just in front of my house and then all of a sudden I would have to incur cost to say even 25% more of my property. I don't think I would be able to afford to do an ADU, you know, like I wouldn't be able to do that. And um uh you know cuz a lot of people let's say they do have irrigation or say they already have some sort of established landscaping somewhere to change landscaping significantly costs a lot of money but that's just my opinion. Okay. Commissioner Caller, uh is it appropriate? Can I ask a question? uh for those interior conversions. So if if I'm adding new fixtures in an ADU, are there efficiency requirements for those new fixtures? Uh we abide by uh 2021 energy code. Yeah. Does that does that include that's as far as I can flow rates and gallons per minute, stuff like that? I believe there are some of those. I that's more Victor

Morazz, our building officials territory. I do not know that code. Okay. Um like I know this one. So I could get back to you on that. But there and perhaps we have someone who Nope. He's shaking his head. Um but I don't actually think that there's a requirements on appliances and things. We have rebate programs to encourage people to purchase. There would be some flow limitations on the usual stuff that we've been doing for a long time. Okay, there we go. Thank you. Other comments, Commissioner Gman? I'm not sure if a five foot 5 foot by 5 foot section of your landscape is that cost prohibitive. And it does if you are irrigating it, it does actually will save you money pretty quickly. So to say something to the effect of 25% of your landscape up to 5 foot x 5 foot would I think um save water and not be that cost prohibitive. Okay. And what one comment I'll just make is that that the last sentence she has in there is that for detached and or expanded ADUs expansion ADUs is that it is it any landscaping that you disturb it needs to needs to work with water efficient landscape standards. So, so that is in there, but it's not increasing it to and that's what you're asking for, right? It's doing increase it into existing landscaping, not just what you done. Well, we're going from 100% to a smaller percentage from just what we like. Right now, it's right now it's all of it. Like, no, right now it's the entire yard, right? It would have to be rellandscaped. and she's going from all of it to absolutely none of it unless you disturb

something. And I just didn't know if there was something in between. I will also improvement. Perhaps this will provide some clarity with with where we're at right now. We're seeing ADU projects come to a grinding halt with the 100% requirement, which is why we're in front of you. If you guys want to consider a percentage, um, you know, I was conferring with my colleague back here. um perhaps something commiserate with the percentage that the ADU is of the primary building something of that also if you're comfortable staff can work on this item in between now and city council with your comments and perhaps provide them with you know your discussion and say planning and zoning commission discuss this other option that you might want to consider and possibly come up with something that staff is comfortable with in the meantime it wouldn't be an approval tonight, but it would be pulled through as these are all recommendations to city council. So well so so so I would suggest let let's vote on the motion we have now and then if we want to amend it you know if it so so so the way the motion is is that it's it's a it's not all or nothing but it's but it's anything that's disturbed has to be water efficient and it's not asking for that's and that's your point of of of it used to be everything had to come up for that versus Now, it's only what you disturbed needs to go to the water efficient standards. That's what the motion is. Yeah. Yep. You have some Yep. Yeah. Yeah. You're correct. Okay. So, let's let's I'll call the question then on on the motion. We

have the motion passes 5 to one with Commissioner Gman voting against. We're missing a vote. Miss not. Did you vote? We did. Yeah. No, we have six. We We have six. Oh, we should have seven. Oh, we have seven. Right. I think it was the timing of when you turned it on versus when Commissioner Leer voted. She was a little behind the display going up. Commissioner Leer, can we get your verbal vote? Should be yes. Thank you. So to amend that vote result, it is six to one with uh Commissioner Gman voting against. Okay. Um let's talk about the sidewalk. Let's talk about it. Uh I've heard about this. I'm sure you have. Um so this is not a proposed amendment before you. As I mentioned, this is a staff initiated code amendment and staff does not support that concept. Uh but that doesn't mean that we're not open to discussing it and we'll probably end up discussing it with city council. So, as it currently stands, all development, all new development, a single family home, a duplex, commercial building, a multif family apartment, an ADU, if you are placing any of those items on a street that does not have a sidewalk in front of it, you as the developer are required to put in the sidewalk. I can go on with a lot of reasons why we have this because it builds out our sidewalk uh infrastructure. Um, I frequently use examples of tends to be more on the commercial side of commercial buildings that come in and try to fight against putting a sidewalk in because it doesn't connect to anything. Five years later, it connects to everything. But it wouldn't if the one commercial business

had actually gotten out of providing the sidewalk. So, it is financially uh an investment into infrastructure in the city. Um, but it is a very important infrastructure that we have throughout our city. I'm sure all of you guys have walked on sidewalks and so with any development that comes in staff really does and engineering department as well and streets department as well um see that that is an investment that's necessary to come with any and all development. So currently an accessory dwelling unit if you are proposing an accessory dwelling unit it triggers that section of code and there are occasions but not frequent anymore especially on the ADU side where it will trigger them needing to put in a sidewalk. Now they can either put in the sidewalk, they can also do a payment in lie, a fee in loo option as well. Um if [Music] approved that council if approved by engineering uh engineering department has the authority on that one whether they want the sidewalk or whether they will take the fee in lie and that money goes towards sidewalks within the city either at that location or other locations to improve them. So, it is not something that we're proposing for you tonight. If you have thoughts on it that you want staff to be able to take counsel, there is not an action item for this on the table. I have I have some questions. Um, so so I mean ju just to understand it. So, and I'll use this what you just went through. So, if you have an interior conversion, you know, let's say you did a basement and you turned it into an ADU, do you have to do a sidewalk or is it just a uh is it a detached or expanded? Um, so like most of our other um applicability items, um there's that percentage threshold. When you get over a certain percent, it triggers the applicability. So, not all interior

conversions are going to require a sidewalk, but if it's big enough, if you're remodeling enough of the property, that's when it uh would trigger that. 20 is it 20%. Let me check while you're talking because I mean that's what we just heard from Yes. on the last variance we had. Pop your head for you, Emry. Building. So they're required when you have a building elevation change that involve 50% or less of the exterior walls. So that could what was it? 3%. Be 50%. So thinking about exterior elevation changes u or 500 square feet. So you know ADUs can range from 300 to a,000 square feet. So they could depending on how big your ADU was could potentially have you do a sidewalk. And I would say, and Emry can back check me on this, most of our ADUs are coming in at over 500 square feet. So if you were under that, you'd get out of having to do a sidewalk. If you had a 350 foot ADU, so it so it's whether it's interior or exterior, it's that square footage. Yeah, it has both. Y captured there. Okay. Um any other just you're just looking for feedback from us. This is something um that I will be talking with council about. So if you guys have thoughts. Okay. Commissioner Conton. How long does a sidewalk have to be? The extent of the property, the whole property. So if you look at lot sizes, um some some properties usually on the commercial side that are outside of the downtown core are bigger. Our downtown core lots are 25 by 100. Um, most are in the 50 by 100. So, you've got 50 feet of linear length on

one side and 100. Um, where it becomes probably most burdensome is if you're on a corner. Yeah. You've got an 80. You got that and that, right? We've certainly worked with um accessory dwelling units coming in where the engineering department has been able to determine that a sidewalk on that particular length is not actually what they want. We have a variety of streets throughout the city that are substandard as far as width, rightway width. Engineering department has a list of those and so they have the authority to remove well add streets, remove streets but indicate a sidewalk is not feasible here. So that's a long list of of substandard streets within the city where this would not apply to. So that also occasionally occurs. It's not a 100% of the time that an ADU will trigger this, but we've had three probably within the last couple years that have um started conversations in the community about the sidewalk. Yes. Oh. Um says corner people. Commissioner Corkin. Yeah, you answered uh most of that question I was going to ask, but is it possible to even get a list of those streets from the engineering or is it is it a fixed number like we could actually see because I live on a street that it wouldn't seem feasible to have a sidewalk? Yes, it is a list that exists. Okay. And there are some so people would know ahead of time. Yes. Prior. Thank you. So, so I have I guess I have a question on it and I get it from commercial and those kind of projects, you know, that's a big kind of thing. And um single family, it seems a little more interesting because there's not too many single families that happen. You know, I mean, if you try to think of unless it's a tear down or how many of those happen on streets, it it doesn't occur that often that that that

that you know, if you build it that they'll come, that the that the sidewalk will come. you know that I guess that's that I guess that's one of my comments on where it's I think a little more interesting if it's if um if there's a a street that has no sidewalks or whatnot and it's and and it's single family it's it seems like it's a little bit different than if it's a commercial thing or you're building a new development in South Glenwood you know something like that someone for example and you have to put one in there and and I you know I kind of get that. So, um, anyway, that's one of my I know you're not looking for emotion or anything, but but that that triggers thoughts, you know, and and I've thought before when you're the only 50- foot section of sidewalk on a street, that's a hard argument to make that and that probably feels almost like a penalty. I mean, it does. So maybe there is maybe there are some aspects kind of what Commissioner G was mentioning earlier like you don't have to go all the way. If there's if there are no sidewalks on your street then you're then you don't have to. If there are 50% you know those kind of middle grounds where it makes more sense. Um I will say I've only been with the city of Glenwood Springs for 11 years only. Um and I have seen those sidewalks become connected which is nice you know um it's an infrastructure that we all use and it's very important but it can be uh financial financially hard to do um in these lower density types of uses for sure. Yeah. I mean, I kind of like the fee and loo thing, but um Commissioner Lir, I think you had said that staff did not like this idea or didn't recommend it, the sidewalks for ADUs. And I'm just curious to hear specifically more about that. And um full transparency, staff places

more of a priority on the infrastructure going into place for pedestrian access within. I would also say what we're seeing, it's rare that there's an entire street that doesn't have a sidewalk. Um, it does happen. I'm sure you guys could probably think of a street or two. Um, but making those connections, we identify the fact that it takes some sort of development to happen and we don't always get it very frequently and so you kind of need to strike where the iron's hot to fill in your infrastructure as things are happening. Um, and so really we see that as the best opportunity the city has to get that really necessary piece of infrastructure. In the case of an ADU, that's probably the lowest, you know, development possible that you could do that's going to trigger this. And so when that's happening, it does feel very heavy for the for the developer, which is usually mom and pop, as opposed to obviously I don't think anyone would have like a hotel come in and be like, "No, no, you don't need a sidewalk." No, that's servicing a lot of people. So, we understand that argument, but we also identify getting the sidewalk pieces in there is a rare opportunity and so staff doesn't necessarily support letting that opportunity go. And then I just had a follow-up question about the threshold that's set in size and how what's the rationale behind that threshold being placed as as a trigger? Is it that there would be more traffic or I'm not thinking that's true but you know it seems a little arbitrary to me. I do not necessarily always have the answer on intent behind code. I didn't write all of the code only pieces of it. Um, that's an interesting question, but maybe something to look at if that threshold seems off um in this instance for ADUs or looking at other development as well. That's

something staff could kind of review with possibly with city council uh to augment possibly to make that different. I'm just thinking like if there was something else that makes more logical sense to trigger it, then it would make more sense to me. like a three-bedroom ADU versus a studio or like something about your statement of having just a random sidewalk space versus something contiguous to something else. You know, that would make more sense to you know, we have sections of code that I'm thinking of right now and you know, engineering does this for sewer and water service. If you're within so many feet of this of X, you have to do X. So, this could also be um something to look at. See, this is why I have you guys talk because then you guys spark ideas in my head. If you're within 500 ft of a sidewalk, you need to put one in. But if you're not, then maybe you get an exemption. That would be, you know, middle ground sort of consideration. so that if you do live on one of those streets without any sidewalk, and I'm sorry to anyone that does, um you don't have to be the first one that that street may forever remain sidewalkless unless it gets put on a capital projects list by the city. So, there's also that aspect of sidewalk is important. Staff wants to get it in everywhere for access. So, we're taking the opportunity. That's why it's not in front of you as something we are suggesting, but we're having the conversation. Commissioner Keller. Yeah. And maybe you just kind of answered this a little bit and you just um but looking at a little bit if if we're creating a fresh sidewalk where one didn't exist before or creating a fresh right public right away. Correct. Generally not always. Not always. But right away didn't exist. Sometimes with

new development, it will end up kind of split between like if there's not enough right away and we've determined that we want sidewalk there, that might take up a portion of the property. Okay. Um I guess and in doing that, I'm kind of going back to some of the constraints that were put on the city in negotiation last spring. um is the opportunity there for the city to negotiate with a a property owner in that type of instance where you know there's a mutual recognition that yeah a sidewalk could be a good thing property owners giving up a little something in order to make it happen. Is there um that type of opportunity for I guess some there public assistance or engagement? Yeah, there's an opportunity there except for providing any currently owned city property to the property owner in exchange, right? This is this is exactly the situation that we were talking about during that election as being potentially problematic. The only way we could do that to actually convey title is to go to an election. Right. So you think even in that minute of an example it'd be I mean that's the I mean that's the tough thing about the language is that it's pretty restrictive, right? I mean I'd have to look at it, you know, on a case- by case basis on I guess there's a question if it were an absolute equal amount of property or something like that. But I just um we've just steered clear of situations where we're we even have to bring it up. Okay. which is these are the exact types of situations where it's most problematic. Yeah. No. Yeah. Thank you. And I'm just I'm just also curious I guess within that vein with and maybe you also answered that with with that is is there what kind of you know legal instruments exist to convey that type of you know relationship or exchange that. Yeah. I think the the one area and we haven't really faced it yet and I I

don't really want to you know say how I would deal with it until it was in front of me but is where we're dealing with adjust say adjusting a right-of-way line um where the you know where there's really not a net loss of public lands if you will in that instance I that might meet the requirements of the the new charter amendment but that would be you know anytime I I think when we're on the negative side of that exchange, I think that triggers the requirement. Sure. I think also something that Emry just mentioned because engineering does have that list. We have a list of all the substandard rightaway widths within the city and those streets are on that list. Everything else has sufficient rightaway to establish sidewalks. Okay. So that that's just meaning that we've already identified and we have a mechanism for uh development or homes on those streets to not provide sidewalk being on that list and so it would only be on the streets that have sufficient right of way to accommodate sidewalks that we're talking about tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you both. Um I have I have another kind of thing is so I liked your idea of the um you know how close the sidewalk you know something along those lines. I think that that think that makes a lot of sense. And I guess to me the other thing it seems like is that if there really is a safety issue someplace and there needs to be a sidewalk there, waiting for individual homes, single family homes to build a sidewalk seems seems like it doesn't make sense. So I mean it it it seemed like then it would be a priority of the of the city to to protect common good or whatnot. So that would be a place that that that we would choose to say, "Hey, this needs to be a priority for us to put a sidewalk in." And you know, it's like the

infrastructure that's been happening with and I know as as Matt's going through and doing the water lines, he's doing everything at the same time, which is which is wonderful, but I mean, takes a lot of time, but but I mean, I think that's a that's the right way to approach. So, I guess I'm just kind of throwing that out there. I don't know if there are any priority areas where there's, you know, like we're talking earlier about, you know, no stop signs or up in that whole area. And I know I was just being up there today and I mean, yes, I I uh I hear what you're saying and and Matt, our public works director, does have a very lengthy and detailed list of all the infrastructure projects that have now been also received some additional funding so that he can do them, right? Um, you know, that's never going to be the whole city. You know, you know this, you guys know this well. You know, the infrastructure is always degrading over time. And so, we're never going to be upgrading everything. But, uh, Blake Avenue is a great example. That community got sidewalks in there. They got a complete street um, as part of a larger project that was identified as very necessary in that corridor. So, it it could happen. Yes. Okay. But every opportunity is an opportunity. Okay. Commissioner Gman, I just have a question. If the homeowner builds the sidewalk, then who maintains the sidewalk? The city. So, are building it for the city? With a project, with any development, and this is true of all public improvements that come along with the project. I'm going to use the example of the very large project that we're all very familiar with by Target right now that's going up on the hill. They have public improvements that they have to make as part of the project which includes a lot of sidewalk. You might have seen that very long strip that's going along Wolfshin Road right now. That is the responsibility of the developer to put in and uh design and construct and then it is accepted by the

city as a public improvement and therefore going forward after they build it, we maintain it. It's basically ours, but it's their requirement to put it in. Commissioner Hel, I wonder if there's a I mean, I assume this is where the 500 square feet sort of came from originally, but a threshold where there's this dollar amount being spent where it makes sense to require a sidewalk. I assume you have data for remodels, additions, and new construction valuation per square foot. Um, I don't think we can put a dollar figure without that becoming a target, but uh, some sort of square footage based on that valuation, average valuation. I think that's a good point. We have other sections of code. Um, I'm thinking when acts of God destroy things, um, you're able to put it back if there's a valuation amount there. So, we could also look to that. Great suggestion. Very well. I'm glad that this wasn't part of your agenda then. Yes, we would probably I'd need more snacks. So, thank you for the feedback. This is really helpful. You can see that it's triggering things for myself and I'm glad Emry is still here because I'm going to rely on his memory as well. Um, so we'll continue to have that conversation with city council. It they may want to address it when we bring this code change. They may want to have it completely separate because it's a sensitive topic and and break it off the code amendment to come in the future. So, you might see it again. Um, and with that, let's go back to the staff report and move on. We've got some easier ones for you. Yay. Design standards. These are the ones that we had previously spent, gosh, I can't even remember, a year ago, maybe. Some of you might remember, we went through kind of design standards for buildings and some of the things that staff has struggled with in application. So, two of those that we're

discussing tonight um is building materials, specifically stucco, and colors, paints, specifically white and off-white. Um in code right now, stucco is not necessarily allowed. It's actually listed as a prohibited, well, it's not listed as prohibited. It's not a primary building material, and it has to get approved by me. So, you can imagine the number of applications that are coming through comdev for me to sign off on stucco. Um, we've had letters, and I'm sorry I didn't include it here, from architects extolling the virtue of Stuckco and how far it has come from what some of us might actually think of as Stuckco. I don't know what your personal opinions are of Stuckco. You can mention them to me in just a moment. Um, so we're looking at of changing this. Um, specifically, let's go to the proposed amendment language. Um so this is in section 704080E E6 under building materials um primary materials. We have a list of primary building materials um that shall be selected for their ability to withstand Glenwood Springs variable mountain climate. Sounds lovely. Um and so we previously had brick, stone, cementitious sighting products, wood and log construction, cast concrete, stucco was not listed. Um we had a other comparable materials as approved by the director that is me. And then number two which still stands um exterior insulation and finish systems referred to as ephus uh which is a synthetic stucco. Some architect up there can probably answer that better. Um shall not be utilized in hightra areas such as primary building entrances where it may be easily damaged. Um, so we would be adding stucco to an approved primary material, uh, with that caveat of the hightra areas, primary building entrances where it's not allowed.

Um, downtown core. I'm going to call on Emory for prohibited in the downtown core and allow elsewhere. Yes. So this is something speaking about historic preservation neighborhood character. The downtown core has additional um standards that we go by which is this next section. Um and so for downtown core properties we would say stucco or ephus shall be prohibited for use as a primary material for residential projects or new additions within downtown core. This is specifically targeted at that stucco is not necessarily a historic material that is used in the downtown core. So we would be maintaining um that that is a prohibited primary material. You could still have accents um in the downtown core load. This has also gone to historic preservation commission and they upheld that recommendation. Yeah. And also probably to add I mean stock has been around for some time. So there, for example, if you want to historically designate something in Glenwood, it has to be at least 50 years old. There's definitely structures that are older than 50 years old and have stucco. But one of the things from preservation's point of view is that a lot of times when you have an older building, maybe like more heritage era building, uh if you're an owner, stucco can be a really easy fix. I don't want to fix the original siding. I'm just going to stuckle it. And so you once you stuckle something, it's really hard to get that back. Um, so that's also kind of another aspect from the preservation point um, in ma in making that prohibition. So it's not just, you know, the fact that people weren't doing stucco in 1880. It's also that once you stucco it, it's that building is now stuckco for probably a long time. Thank you. Um, so that is the proposal with stucco. And then additionally on

the design standards, we have some questions on stucco. Yeah, let's do stucco. Tommy tried to wiggle out of that one, didn't you? Exactly. Trying to slide right through there. So, the the only the only question I have is on the um on the primary building entrances. So, and I don't know, I've done, I guess, commercial buildings and that kind of stuff, college, you know, all that kind of stuff. And um it's pretty common, you know, for for like a commercial kind of thing. So, have you had architects push back on you on that or Yes. [Music] Yes. So anyway, okay. I mean I mean I'm just saying my experience was that so Emry points out, you know, when you become director, you don't read code as often. So I need Emry to like back. So it's it's actually an allowed building material in our non-residential mix section. So this is specifically just resial. Thank you for that clar. Oh, this is just residential. So commercial buildings this this doesn't apply to. They can do stuckco all day long. So, so you're saying residential, which is clarification. That's because little kids could be carrying something and poke a hole in it. Is that, you know, I don't I'm not an expert on Stuckco and its durability. This was put in um in our 2018 code. Um I have architects telling me that it has improved over time and that the durability holds up to Glenwood Springs mountain climate. Um, so perhaps this is something that we need to receive more expertise on from people that are knowledgeable about stucco uh on the primary entrance side. Yeah, I would question that. That that's the only one I would question maybe would be on the I mean, you know, if if it works on a commercial building, which probably gets more abuse than a single family residence. I guess that's what I will say and Emory can attest to this fact. Um, applying this standard of code is very challenging because it's myself,

it's Emmery, it's the rest of the planners that are determining one, what's a hightraic area, and two, what's a primary building entrance. It's it's not exactly clear. So, if you guys are of the mind, perhaps in between now and council, we can go find that stucco expert out there in Springs and ask where this might have come from because I I honestly don't know on on the durability of primary building entrances for Stuckco. Yeah, I think I have it at my house. I have it at mine from 25 years ago. I think we put it at my primary entrance. So, okay. Okay. I mean, I don't know who that expert is or but that that that would be that would be the one thing I would question. I guess I would question that um expert come and talk. Commissioner Hen, um are you lumping ethan with stucco as a primary building material or is ephus not allowed as a primary building material? It's not listed as a primary building material. So, if we need to make that clarification, it could be stuckco/ ephus. I know like the building code for example makes a different differentiation between the two. I think there is a differentiation here as well in that code included that call out below for specifically ephus. So thank you for that and we'll I would think that stucco or ephus should be included in the primary materials. Yeah. Thanks John. Commissioner Kellen. Yeah, I guess I would look at that A2 is I just say strike that whole thing. Um, one because the ambiguity for comdev into defining hightra area and then two, it's it's really the responsibility of the land or the property owner to to fix whatever's damaged. Um, but I I do have a a kind of a process question of

um historic preservation commission. Are they because it's downtown core, are they consulted first? Is there kind of a generally? No. Uh, so the only time a application goes to historic preservation commission is when it's locally landmarked. And right now there's only a dozen structures citywide commercial and residential that are landmarked. So even though there's a large historic building stock, very few are actually designated that way. So that was just more of a recommendation. This this code amendment had relevance to it and that's why we've went to that. Okay. Same same way that you know you're providing recommendations to council. Sure. Okay. And then just I guess following up on that if if something has been stuckco since 1886 um and it's in the downtown core, but they they can't refurbish it as stucco, but they have to use an alternative sighting material. So it'd be a legal non-conforming building and you can maintain something that's legal non-conforming. Okay. So they could replace existing with now if they wanted, you know, do a 600 foot edition, we would have a conversation and again it says primary. Sure. So then it would probably be some nuance and Okay. Well, you have some accents. Maybe you do like a Wayne's cotting. Okay. All right. Thank you. One of my Okay, Commissioner Gman. Uh, I was interested that the one of the reasons that um, Stuckco was not permitted is because it might be an easier way to fix an older building and um, probably more coste effective to to fix a crumbling building. Um, so now I feel like and that would force somebody to fix it in a more expensive way to maintain its original appearance. Is that what you said? Correct. So, I just like to, you know, take a moment and imagine Grand

Avenue if everything was 100% stuck everywhere versus how it looks today. So, that's the trade that is a trade-off. Like, yes, it is more affordable. Uh, you might have that. However, you do lose that historic character. So, and I think I would point out for you guys that has been a high topic of conversation and support from you to preserve historic buildings. So that is something that we found important to bring before you due to your comments. And also then now that I just said that it is just residential. So what I just said, you can do that right now. Grand Avenue could be 100% stuckle because they're all commercial buildings. So it's really more about the residential. Yay. Is it code fun? Yay. I just think it's interesting. Few minutes ago, we were saying it was not cost-effective to have people even turn five by foot by 5 by five foot into some zeroscape. But now we're saying, "Oh, but you can invest $50,000 into I suppose the difference there is that we were talking about landscaping versus historic neighborhood character. Small differentiation, just putting out what staff is putting forward." And and to that recommendation comes from the preservation commission. That's their sole focus. So they're not like you are considering a lot of other factors. They're looking at what is preservation wise the best recommendation. A good point. You guys have everything to consider. Historic preservation commission is a little bit more focused. But the house would still be standing. We're not talking about tearing down a house. We're just saying the bricks are falling apart. So it'd be nice to be able to repair. I think we can um differentiate arguments back and forth for a very long time. So I think on this one you guys need to discuss amongst yourselves and get comfortable with what you want to put forward before we um pontificate till midnight. I think Commissioner Cohen has

a motion. Thank you. Um you're welcome. I would like to make a motion to um approve the addition of stucco as a primary building material um in accordance with the findings on page six of the staff report. Um I Yes. Oh. Okay. and to add ephus. Um, so it's stuckco um or ephus as a primary. I am going to take a leap here with number two. I would like to strike A2 from the code as well. Okay, we have a motion. Commissioner Hton, did you second that motion? Okay. Motion and a second by Commissioner Hton. Um, any more conversation on this or let's call the question. The motion passes unanimously. Now, moving right along. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of that, we move to paint color. Um, so code does not allow white or off-white colors to be used for single family residential structures within the downtown core. Was everyone

aware of this fun fact? Yes. Um, this comes up quite often for us. Um, and the fact that it's only downtown core and I'm sure Emory can speak to historic buildings using these colors as well. Um, we are proposing to strike that language. So this is under section 7040 80 E10 color. Um you can see E1 it currently reads white, off-white, fluorescent, metallic or other highintensity colors are prohibited and we would be striking white and off-white from that but maintaining the rest of the highintensity uh pro color prohibition. It's very simple. So I'll open it up for questions and discussion. Any questions? Okay, then let's we'll make a motion on this one, too, and just skip on down the line. Commissioner Conton. Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh for uh section D. I guess it's building materials paint color um that um white and off-white can be used and the rest of the parts remain the same. Um including staff recommendations on page six. Okay, we have a motion. I guess that would be E. I apologize. E. Yeah, I think that's good. We have a second. Commissioner Callum. Second. We have a motion in a

second. Any questions? And let's call the question. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. And moving on to hotel definitions. Um, this is an interesting one. Uh, so we have come across several proposals recently that have called into question how we define hotels versus other lodging uses, specifically uh, short-term rentals, vacation rentals, and how those differentiate, which in some occasions they really don't. Um major difference being that we regulate vacation rentals. Um and we have a limit and we have a limit that we are approaching and usually when that happens developers start getting very creative. And so we have meetings where you know it's throwing spaghetti against the wall. And a lot of times when that happens we as staff are going into the definition section to hold it to something like well this actually says this. And what we found is under the hotel, motel, hostel, and lodge definition, there's a little bit of leeway that we think um some clarification is in order for us to implement and be able to tell someone yes, a hotel is allowed in the configuration that you're proposing or not. Um, so the proposed amendment here is adding a clarification of having an on-site check-in lobby serving as a guest reception, waiting, and gathering area. In current code, that's mentioned as possible. Uh, it says the building or buildings may include accessory facilities such as and then that lobby

and guest room is listed there. In addition with parking, restaurants, meeting rooms, you can see on-site check-in lobbies, recreation areas, or similar facilities commonly associated with lodging. So, in staff's attempt at at making this more clear of when it's a hotel, not a vacation rental, um we are changing that a lobby constitutes like a required lobby constitutes more of your traditional hotel use as opposed to a vacation rental. So, uh, the example that I'm going to kind of paint for you is, um, you know, a downtown building that perhaps has had 18, uh, apartments and now it's being changed into a hotel because there's no more short-term rental permits. What, you know, and what we've struggled with, and this is a challenging one, um, is what is the differentiation there? If you call it a hotel, one of the big things that I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with is that a hotel is going to be taxed differently than a residential property. We have someone here that can probably speak to that with much more authority than I can. Um, so a commercial tax is somewhere in the 26 or 27% whereas a residential property tax is somewhere around the 6 to 7%. So, if you're calling you're building a hotel, you're actually going to be paying more in property taxes than if it's a vacation rental and it's still under residential. Uh, that's a topic that has made it to the Colorado legislature and the question of should vacation rentals actually be taxed at that higher commercial rate. Um, that hasn't moved forward as of yet. Uh, keeping an eye on it, but so that is a difference in how the property performs and they're taxed. And then also for our purposes really it's not so much about the taxes because the city gets a very small very very small percentage of property taxes. Um so this isn't an attempt by us to make to generate more income. I just want to

be very clear about that. It's really more about making sure that it walks and talks truly like a hotel and is not kind of this weird loophole of like well it kind of is a vacation rental but you're calling it a hotel. Um, so making that differentiation and you know uh discuss this with our legal office about how we implement this because staff has been struggling a little bit. So we might have some more nuance coming out of there in our application specifically with the um definition listed identifying a building or group of buildings um and holding that more to a standard of like an entire building versus you know a floor or half a floor things of that nature. This might all seem very confusing to you guys. So, I welcome the questions and we can have a fun discussion on why why this might serve us or if you think it does not. Commissioner Hen, are the last two sentences commentary or is that part of the current definition? This category. Yeah, that's part of the current definition. So, it already requires an on-site check-in lobby. But if you see it says may include, it doesn't say shall include. The second to last sentence says this category requires an on-site check in lobby. That's my mistake I think. Yeah, it says may. Let me go. Let's check actual code. Um, you're right. So my brain in trying to craft this went everywhere and it was messy and I can see that this is actually not the current code. So let me pull it up. We are looking at definitions. I'm going to stop share for a moment while I pull up the right code. Good catch. Okay. So, go back [Music]

here and share So I think we have it correct here. Yes. So this is the correct section of code. The highlighted section um and the strike struck out section is what we've added or deleted. So it doesn't have that specific sentence that you're talking about. So current code um reads the building or buildings may include accessory facilities such as parking, restaurants, meeting rooms, on-site check-in lobbies, recreation areas, or similar facilities, but it's not a requirement. So this would be the actual amendment here that we're proposing. Okay. Commissioner Conton. So semantics. So you would just say for the underline the building or buildings must include on-site check-in lobby and then the period and then you would take out on-site check-in lobbies again and then you would take out that other sentence that you added. Right. Right. So what you're looking at our proposal uh what was in staff report had an extra sentence in there. So as you just mentioned the proposal is adding a requirement for a lobby removing it from the list of may provide and that is the bulk of the proposed amendment. Okay. I mean I think it's applicable for us to address this. I mean, we do talk about short-term rentals and uh things like that here in the commission. So, thank you.

So, if you guys have never read the lodging definitions, it's a fun area. Um, bed and breakfast is an interesting one. It has bed and breakfast is actually very specific about what they have to do. They have to have an on-site restaurant, but it cannot be open to the public. And so that definition is very clear to staff on what is required and what is not. Um, hotel I think with some evolving industry uses has become a little less clear. Can you is that you want me to zoom in further? I think that's so um bed and breakfast only occur within a detached single family dwelling that is owner occupied. So you have to live on site or occupied by a resident manager where individual bedrooms are offered as single accommodations to guests for transient lodging and which facility includes incidental eating and drinking service from a single kitchen. Don't even think about getting another serving only residents and guests and not operated in the manner of a commercial restaurant. So don't think about inviting the public in either or as a facility for commercial activities such as for-profit private parties or receptions, retail sales or similar activities. You can see this is incredibly specific. Bed and breakfast have a very long list of things that they are required to meet, but not they're not a hotel. But not a hotel. You have a teenager. Okay. So, we want to do a motion on this one, Yeah. helping you out here. So, I'd like to um uh make a motion to approve the proposed amendment language for hotel definition, specifically D. Um, uh, the building or buildings must include an on-site check-in lobby

serving as a guest reception, waiting, and gathering area. Um, and, um, staff recommendations and the proposal on page six. And then scratching those. Oh, yeah. And and as described as described, have a second. carried. Commissioner Call second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Call the question. The motion passes unanimously. And finally, um we put this under ERTA changes. This is like common mistakes or things that need to be updated as as uh situations change. This is actually not in section 70. Um so it's not something that you guys have to approve. I could have taken this straight to council, but because I'm doing all of these lovely coded changes, I'm just going to get your blessing anyways or denial, whichever you should choose. Uh this is section 301020. Um administrative department. So this is just talking about city operations basically. And it states that it states currently for under engineering uh that the city engineer shall also serve as the traffic engineer. We have a traffic engineer now. That is no longer necessary. Um the engineer can always designate people. It doesn't need to be listed in code. So this is a small error change that we're uh correcting. Any questions on that? Barger, our traffic engineer. Thanks you. Could we do a verbal vote on this? Okay, let's just have a raise of hands. All in favor of this.

The motion is unanimously approved by show of hands. Thank you. Exactly. Congratulations. We have made it to the end of the code amendments for this. Yay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Hannah. That's all I have for you guys on this side. Very good. Exactly. Okay, now we're to commissioner comments. [Music] Um, we don't have anyone to make us be live. Changing hats. Yes. Um, Commissioner Lair. Okay. Commissioner Conton. No. Speaking. Yeah. Like a duet. I got it. Commissioner Call. Um I don't know if it's appropriate for this um for the commission, but to get an update on the mall um and any which one Oh, our mall. Glennwood Springs Mall. Glennwood Springs. The Glenwood Springs Mall. The old one. The old one. Glennwood Meadows. Glennwood Mall. Yeah, the Glenwood Mall. Yeah, they're both malls to me. Um, yes, the that one over there that um yeah, where the drive-in used to be and all that stuff. Um, yeah. Would it be appropriate to update the commission on anything that's happening with that property? Is there anything whether it's something now or

just later? I just I haven't really heard anything. I'll address that in director comments. Okay. Okay. [Music] [Laughter] You're supposed to talk longer. She was tired of talking. Um, I don't have any no comments. Oh, well, I I guess my one comment is Emry, I want to thank you very much even though we changed what you did. Thank you very much. You do great job as always. You sure? I just wanted to say I I've been taking an informal poll in my job. I come across a lot of contractors and subcontractors. I've been asking about the uh switch down here to online permitting and I've heard nothing but positive things. So, kudos to you and your staff. [Laughter] Anyone that starts with informal verbal poll, you're like, "Oh god, that's good. That's good. Commissioner Gman, Commissioner Corker. No. Okay. Director comments. So, um I just checked with Emory. We do have an application for your June meeting, which is another variance. Sign signed permit. Signed permit variance. Fun one, huh? Um you guys, wow, you're so great. There's a song about that. Um, as far as an update on the mall, um, we have a urban renewal agency authority. What does A stand for? Authority. Um, that's currently up updating the plan that includes that mall area. And so there's some things that'll be coming out of that. I think our next meeting is in mid June. um that's a consultant is working on an updated plan area with and also

working with the property owner himself on plans for that but I don't have anything concrete to tell you tonight. So perhaps an update a little bit later after some of those things have possibly been adopted by city council. Do you have anything on that topic? I I I What about two other updates since you're doing them all? What about the old Safeway and the beer spa? The old Safeway property is moving forward with a couple of building permits for Harbor Freight and Ark Thrift that is public and on the record from the developer. Um, so they're renovating that building to include those two new tenants. Correct. So, is is that anything we would see or is that just a it's just a remodel kind of? Yeah, that's um it's it's not even a change of use. Um, you know, it's going retail to retail. It's an interior remodel. They didn't trigger any variances, which is why they're not in front of you. Um, so really that's just repurposing it for the next tenant tenant finish. And then the beer spa though, I ask about the beer. The beer spa is also an active building permit which Emmery can update you on. Sure. Uh, so they're plugging along. Uh, one thing that they have to do is finish the end unit where the rock shop is going to move to. So, that's I think been their focus lately is getting that all prepped so the rock shop can move over and then they're going to, you know, finish their improvements because they haven't had a chance to really get in the rock shop space yet because it's still been open. What is a beer spa? Is there a place you go and drink beer? There's chairman. There's no mushrooms. What is it then? Oh, just uh they're like individual spa rooms. So, you have kind of like a huge bath, uh, a sauna, shower, and then they I think the owner has one in the front range. I forget where. Sometimes they'll put like hops and stuff in the water, so it's not

actual beer. And then they also are going to serve alcohol. So, um, yeah, it's so you can drink the water if you want to. You can drink your bath. It's up to you. Um, yeah, Commissioner Cohen. Thank you. I guess just to add a little additional context to the URA, kind of what I'm hoping to get just because we've had turnover from Commissioner Martin no longer being there and with Ingret stepping away and her previous role. So, I guess just kind of an idea who's juicing it currently and um and that general direction. I think a survey is out there or something. But anyway, um just kind of its status and who is applying pressure discussion. We you know we haven't had a meeting since both of those turnovers. So it will be kind of interesting to see sort of where the new group coaleses around. Uh I know we're also going to have a new I think a new rep from the library district. Yeah. Who's a former council member. Okay. Um, so I don't know how that's going to shake out either. Okay. And I think Carl, for clarification for them, all of city council is Yeah, all of city council sits, but I I mean I to the commissioner's point, like Ingred was driving that pretty hard. Um, as was Jonathan a little bit. Um I I don't know that three new council members were, you know, the fire hose has been on and this is one we haven't provided them, you know, hey, you need to switch hydrants now. Yeah. Um so we spent quite a bit of time on the economic incentives components inside the city code. And I think that's a helpful initial discussion to get everybody kind of warmed up for the types of things we might be looking at out on that property. So we're just going to have to see. and also just the engagement of the property owner and where he's at which has always been, you

know, part of that puzzle. Okay. Thank you. Are you still seeing some, it seemed, I guess in the couple of meetings that I've attended in the past, there seemed to be some some pretty good cohesion among the represented jurisdictions there. Part of Yeah. And I think the big one and it will be interesting to see if the change in the county commissioners changes this is we are moving towards um you know John Martin was surprisingly supportive of moving towards a property tax tiff which is a huge tool that we don't have in the toolbox currently in the URRA and to see if commissioner chairman Jankovski is equally supportive of that concept. um because that's that's probably the most powerful financing tool we have to use to help the property owner. Okay, cool. Thank you. Appreciate it. That's all from me and thank you for the informal poll. It's not often those go my way. Yeah. Good. Okay. Well, we are adjourned.