Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Yes, it is. So, you live up there year round? One day.

20 years or so? There's 17. [Music] Councelor White

here. Councelor Gman here. Councelor Cowan here. Councelor Waller here. Councelor Conton. Councelor Hton here. Councelor Seperly here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Um do we have any conflicts of interest for any of the uh items tonight? Okay. Are you on?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be recusing from item B. Uh, that's the reasoning of the mall property. I'm in the notice area and a business attached to that property. Okay. Thank you, Greg. Um anything anyone else? Okay. Um okay. Uh next is receipt of the minutes from July 22nd, 2025. We need a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion by Commissioner Conton. Uh, second. Second by Greg. Um, okay. Um, any any comments, discussions? Um, I was not there, so I'm abstaining, but I'm also abstaining. Okay.

Okay. Well, let's call for the uh well, we'll just we'll just do a hand raise because there's a few people. Okay. Is if everyone's in favor of accepting the minutes as they were written. Okay, looks like we're good. Okay. Um next, any comments from citizens appearing for items not on the agenda? Oh, one thing I forgot to bring up that this meeting is also being held via Zoom. So, um, people can help me watch up there to see if there's any hand raising. I see none. So, okay, we'll move on to the uh, new items. Okay, the first item is a special use permit for the marijuana dispensary at 2922 Glenn Avenue. Watkins. Good evening, planning zoning commission. How's everyone doing?

So, this item is for a special use permit for fired cannabis, uh, which is located to be located at 2922 Glenn Avenue. That's the formal location of the Green Dragon marijuana business. Um the zoning is commercial. Uh and it is a lot that's shared with a couple of other businesses. Um and here I've got you a map of where where we're located. We're kind of near Walmart um and some other commercial businesses in this area. Um so this project is a special use permit which means that it has a um a little bit higher kind of scrutiny review than would be for an administrative decision. That's why you are all considering this tonight. Special use permits are for projects or types of uses that have um kind of varying characteristics and how they operate, the impacts that they can have on the neighboring properties. And so it is your job tonight to um see that the it does not have any undue impacts and that it meets the six criteria of approval uh which all special use permits have to meet. And so I've got on the screen now the six criteria. Uh the staff recommendation is that it does meet all six of them. Um and I'm going to go through them briefly with you all next. Um let's see. I'll read these to you. The first the use will be compatible with the surrounding area. um we don't have any concerns with that because it was formally the same kind of business that it's proposed to be now. The impacts of the use on the surrounding areas have been adequately minimized. Uh we believe there's no problems there. The third criteria is that the use will be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the code. We don't have any concerns there. The fourth is that the use will comply with all applicable standards of this code. We do think it meets that, but uh that does uh maybe merit a little bit more discussion than

I'm going to get to in the next slide. Fifth criteria is that the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other city plans and policies. We have no concerns. And then the the use minimizes adverse impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the surrounding areas and the city. So to the fourth criteria of approval um that the project complies with all the uh applicable regulations in the code. Um there is some some there are some kind of interesting characteristics about where it's located. Uh, as you all know from reading the packet, there's a 10,00 foot buffer that's required um in between all retail marijuana businesses and facilities that include public or private schools, parks, mental health facilities, drug treatment facilities, and other marijuana businesses. And the way we measure that is just straight line property line to property line. So we don't take into account roads or barriers or anything in between them. So, um there are a couple of of uh of uh businesses that are of interest here. We have a mental health facility that's about 800 feet away. It's called Health Solutions West. Um this is the location of the former Mind Springs Center for everyone who knows that on South Glenn. Um that business however is operating without a business license um which they're required to have. So we interpret that to mean that um we don't take that into account when we are applying the regulations for marijuana businesses and uh with the public or private school facilities where classes are held um for uh kindergarten through 12th grade. We do have one of those facilities. It's about 575 ft away. Uh it's the automotive program that's run by the Roaring Fork School District. Uh we believe that it was um begun after a pretty lengthy

absence in around the year 2020. And so that was while the Green Dragon, the former business on the site, was operating legally. And we take that to mean that this oper um can continue the the same continue the the the use that was there before. So, retail marijuana um when the school moved in, we believe that the that it works with our regulations for the uh retail marijuana to use to continue. So, even though that's within the the buffer area, um that is how we interpret what the rules are. Um a couple of operational requirements um that include things like the hours of operation we are um going to require through recommended condition of approval. And now I'll do I just wanted to show you the map of where we are in this buffer. Um see you can hopefully see that on the screen. The green area is the 1000 foot buffer and I put those stars. Uh the one on the left is the health solutions west and the star on the other side is the um the school district property. We do believe that this project is consistent with comprehensive plan. that meet meets the future lane use category designation and there aren't really any other kind of goals or policies that apply to this project. Um, a couple minor referral comments from our public works department and our fire department. They would like to do an inspection along with the building department. have not received any public comment for this. And so, um, again, the staff recommendation is to approve this special use permit, uh, with the findings and conditions that are in your staff report. I've put them up here on the screen. Again, they're the same as they are in your packet. These are the conditions. Um, and then I have some action

alternatives for you if you guys uh are thinking a different way. That's all I have for you now. So, Um, let me hear all of your questions. Okay. Thank you, Watkins. Um, any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Conton. Thanks, Watkins. I have a question on the code and standard. So, um, how is this a legal non-conforming use? Um, when this is a new special use application and not simply like a license transfer,

it is a a new special use permit. And I should mention that the previous use did not have a special use permit because it was kind of grandfathered in. It operated as a medical marijuana facility before Colorado allowed recreational or retail marijuana. Um, but it is the same use that was there. It's the same location, the same space. There's no change to the the footprint of the use. um nothing substantial about it is changing. It's just a new business. And so we interpret that it's a continuation of the a use that was awful.

And to piggyback on that, had this been issued a special use permit, that special use permit would have been transferable. And so just recognizing this use in this location has been there, these other businesses have moved into its inside of that thousand foot buffer um since it's been in place. And so it's a little bit of that if you move next to the um to the meat packing plant and then complain because it's a meat packing plant, that's not a reason to shut down the meat packing plant. And we're kind of taking that same approach because for all other intents and purposes, it's the kind of location where we want this kind of business and why it was located there originally, frankly. I have another question. Is that okay?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um so in 2020 we did the buffer change, right? and it is only 575 ft from the um school or the facility and 800 feet from the mental health drug facility. So I guess just kind of piggybacking off of something that you mentioned, is there like a regulation to negate that 2020? I know you said it was before or whatever, but can I get some more clarity to that? I I'm sorry. Um, so there again, that that use was there. The Votech facility um operated in the early 2000s. I know it wasn't there when I was on the school board because I was arguing for Votech programs and we didn't have any in the district. Um, the Green Dragon moved into that location and then they restarted a vote program um I think um relatively early this year. In fact, they just started that up. So there again, we're just kind of interpreting that the green dragon still has a valid operating license and permit to operate in that location. They have relinquished it to the city, but not yet uh the state has not approved that relinquishment. So from at least my perspective interpreting how we would fairly apply the standards in the code that use that school use moved into the 10,00 foot buffer.

Um and the case law is pretty clear. You can't shut somebody down because a new use moved in. Similarly on a mental health facility it operated failed is operating now without a special use per or without a business license. But there again that use moved into that thousand foot buffer um and the location of this dispensary has always been in this location. And so to interpret that in such a way that we're not unfairly treating a use um they didn't you know they didn't move into that buffer and didn't tell anybody. they have been located in that located in that operation continually since before they could be a dispensary and that they were a medical dispensary, not a retail.

Um, one one question I just want to kind of stay on the same thread here just a little bit, but it is um, you know, there's no public comment, but that's, you know, a distance from the property line that's different than the 10,00 for for for pe people being noticed and that sort of thing. So I guess my question is it does it and you know maybe it doesn't even matter but but would we put uh you know tell uh Roaring Forest School District that hey this is this is now happening and and um or does that we don't even worry about that. I want to say Grand Avenue it's pretty obvious where the green dragon is. Um it's pretty obvious from the school facility. I mean, one one of the things I I think they I think they knew have known. It's kind of hard not to know that there's dispensary there. I think the other thing of note is that um and Ryan Muse is I I didn't tell him I might call on him, but Ryan Muse who handles licensing, I don't believe we've had a an incident at this location regarding either one of those facilities, you know, it because they've been there, it's been there operating,

right? This is just a new ownership group. It's not a new use at the location. Okay. I have one more. I haven't touched it. Oh, sorry. Well, we have um Commissioner Cowan. Thank you, Watkins and and Carl for that run through. Um I guess type of use being what it is, it's going to stay there. So say a new business comes in, change of use application, it is a different use and then that goes away and there's another application that comes in for a change of use. That would be different. Okay. So that would

I part of what and this is a unique situation because it it started as something else. It became a retail dispensary and it didn't get a special use permit at that time because we didn't require it, right? The way that transition happened. um so had it gotten a special use permit that would have been transferable and we would be having this conversation. Um at all because it wouldn't have come in front of you. Um if it ceases to be that use and it switches over, I don't know, you know, AutoZone expands and then they contract and then it's available again at that point because the use had left the location, we'd have an entirely different conversation about whether the use could come back into that location. I think our analysis, my analysis is based on the fact that it's been continually that use um as these other uses moved in and in fairness and in trying to navigate what is a quirk in the code about how they became licensed there um or permitted there underneath the zoning code in an equitable fashion that doesn't get us dinged um in another venue. That's kind of that interpretation. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner White. So, are all special use permits transferable as long as they maintain the same use? Um, unless you guys say they aren't when you issue them, which is fairly rare that we make them personal, but the code, I believe, has a provision that they can be transferred unless the conditions of the special use permit prohibit them from being transferred. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Gin, I want to know who and why did they change the buffer from 500 to 1,000 ft in 2020.

I don't know for sure why they did that. Um, it was for my time in the city. Um, some of you were here. I know some of you state it it may match some state requirements, some state

of requirements. Um because I I and for the mental health facility as well, I would believe it may or may not be true that this is probably better to keep marijuana further than a thousand ft away from children, adolescents especially, and mental health patients, right? Like whether they were there first or not, that's the meaning of the buffer.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think that um the regulation of marijuana in the state of Colorado has had an interesting history that I don't know I I'll be quite frank. I don't know how much of it is based on um uh data and how much of it is just based on how people feel about things. Um we had originally had a 500 foot buffer in Glenwood and then moved it out to a thousand. Um I don't I don't know if Commissioner Sipperly remembers all of the kind we have had number a number of revisits. Two things we've re revisited a lot. One is marijuana regulation and the other one is short-term rentals in town. So I I don't I can't recall in 2020 a lot of other stuff was going on that year. So I called this one specifically. Um, we were asked to re-evaluate the buffer zone by council because some people in the community felt like there were going to be too many uh retail marijuana stores jammed into the downtown area. There were already some in the downtown. We weighed um the option of capping the number of facilities, but instead figured that the buffer zone would assure that they're equally spread out around town. Um, and of course there there was a concern to keep it um, distant from schools and mental health facilities, but um, I mean if that mental health facility is operating without a license, I I wouldn't call it a legitimate business. And what we are looking at with the marijuana retail facility is a legitimate business.

I believe the state standard was 500, which is why we adopted it at the time as well. So you could Hey, Commissioner Conton. Sorry to be asking so many questions. Um, so just to go back to Okay, so we're putting a business in the same exact location but where three have failed. Is that accurate? I'm just wondering, you know, why is this more compatible or sustainable than the other two that aren't there anymore?

Are you you're asking why the previous businesses failed? Well, yeah. I mean, if we're talking about compatibility of the surrounding area, and I was just kind of situating my question in regards to that, and you know, two other businesses were there that were the same exact business um failed. And I'm just wondering, you know, is this are we limiting opportunities for other businesses if we're just staying in the lane of marijuana businesses there? Well, I would I would say first of all, we don't know that the previous business has failed. Um I don't have that information at least. Um and then two, you know, it the the owner who's not the marijuana operators. The owner is someone else. Um so they had the opportunity to to take another tenant if they chosen to. And we are just we're just responding to what they're asking to do. Okay.

Thanks, Commissioner Gin, I did have a second question. So, um, being new to PNZ, I guess my question is, does just because this mental health facility that cares for patients with mental health doesn't have a business license makes them any less of a company that cares for mental health patients with drug abuse problems? The issue is more whether or not it's legally defensible to deny this application based on a business that doesn't have a business license. That's really the issue in front of you. Is that in the code that in order to be a health facility, you have to have a business license?

Well, you are required to have a business license to operate a business within the within the community. And so for us to legally recognize them as a business that would impact I think there are two issues going on here. One is that right that the applicant has identified that this is a business operating without a license which needs to get corrected. The second one is is that it moved into that buffer zone post this use being in that location. Those are the two things that affect the mental health facility. Okay. Um Okay. I'm going to just kind of beat this dead horse here a little bit. But on so on on on the on the special use permit that exists already. Um

that's the oddity. It doesn't actually exist. It doesn't. Okay. Right. Right. I know. It doesn't. So So now we're making it be a special use permit, but it's but it's been a business that's been there. Yeah. Okay. Um any other questions? Okay. Um does the app Just wanted to clarify. Pete had asked this question before, but so the school knows that the like the schools had got a notice that this was going to happen or the schools did not get a notice that this was it would not have been a property owner that would have been noticed um within the two 300 300 300 now feet um noticing. What I was suggesting is is that it's pretty hard not to know that it's there. Yeah. But formal notice,

do they know that there's a special use permit application? They were not. It was noticed like every other application is. They are not within the 300 feet. So, they were not noticed as a property owner. So, from the standpoint of the codes noticing requirements, all noticing requirements have been met. And there is nothing in the special use criteria that requires additional noticing to be done on this type of an application. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Okay, I guess now we can hear from the applicant, right?

Um, you need and if you could state your name and um where you're from, that'd be great.

Yeah, my name is Saul Patel. I'm a representative from Fired Cannabis. I reside in Lakewood, Colorado at the moment. I appreciate you guys taking your time to review our case. We are seeking approval for a special use permit for the 2922 Glen AB location. Um to previously state, I know someone mentioned that the previous businesses had gone out of business. Um the market consolidated a lot after 2020. So a lot of uh large scale cannabis operators decided to exit um communities and environments in which they felt that they were not going to receive an adequate return on their investment. However, our company does feel that Glenn Glenwood Springs is a phenomenal place and we would like to have approval for this location here. We have met all the requirements that you guys have set forth. Um the previous tenant, Green Dragon, has also been operating there for nearly over a decade now. Um reviewing all the information, it seems that it would be appropriate for us to be able to operate a dispensary there if you guys would allow it. Thank you. Okay. Um any questions for the applicant?

Seeing that there's none, thank you very much. Thank you so much, guys. Okay. Um, any comments from the public? Is anyone here from the public for this? Okay, I'll close the public comment. Oh, okay.

Who's running Zoom for us? Door's closed. Hi. Can Can you hear me? Um, barely. Okay. Can you can you hear me better right now? Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. You also have the owners as well. Um the applicants um speaking here. And um weirdly enough, we were actually the through a weird quirk. We were actually the owners of the prior business as well. So we are one and the same. So we're the same operators, new business, but it's the same ownership from the before to now. So, we've been operating in Glenwood for well over a decade. So, we can answer any any questions you have if you can hear us. These are my bosses. Okay. Chairman, you might want to have him identify himself. Oh, yes. This is Did you hear that comment?

Yes. Uh, this is Alex Lavine. And then I also have Andrew Lavine here as well. Okay. And you're the you're the owner of the business. Is that what I heard? You're the owners of Fired Cannabis. And we were previously long time ago original founders, we created Green Dragon as well. So we were the same owners of that business as well. Thank you for joining us

and we apologize for not being there in person. Um my daughter is getting married so uh we are out of the country right now. Okay. Well, we're in a beautiful place. I'm just saying. Maybe maybe we wish we were with you, but we are here. So, um yeah, exactly. It's not a competition. Okay. So, any any questions for Okay. Well, thank you very much. We have no questions um for you. So, um we'll go on. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, then I'll come back to comments from the public because that was a continuation of the applicant. Um, okay. No other comments from the public. Um, okay. So, the public hearing is closed. So, now I we bring it back to the commission for um comments. And do we want to start with a motion or how do we want to go here? Commissioner Sipperly. I'll make a motion to approve special use permit 62-2025 action item one with the bindings and conditions on page eight of the staff report.

A second. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Cly and a second by Commissioner White um to approve. um questions and comments from commission on Commissioner Connorton.

Well, um yep, I think it's great. I I think one thing is because the shop wasn't there prior to even when the other business was there before RF or Roaring Fork put in the shop. It would be good to have, you know, make sure that everybody's made aware and, you know, kids will probably try to come in. I know it's 21 and up, but you know, just to do your due diligence. Commissioner Gman,

I'm certainly not against small businesses, but I do think the health of the children and our adolescents trumps small businesses. So, I do have concerns that this is within the thousand foot buffer of um a school and having children. I know that the reason we're going that that you suggest that we approve it is because it's always been there, but I don't know if that's really a good reason to trump um the reason why we have the thousand foot lumber.

Okay. Thank you. Other comments? Okay, let's I'll call for the vote. So, The motion passes 6 to one. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner Cowan is going to recuse himself now. So, Carl, can he sit in here and listen or does he have to?

He can sit in the hallway. You get a time out you and you have to look in the corner. You can hear pretty well. No, it just um from the standpoint of parents and any impact that he could have ones. Okay. No worse. No worse.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is uh reszoning for Glenwood Springs Mall PUD to M1 mixeduse corridor 51027 highway 6 and 24 I think they're calling some people in here. They need to be called out probably especially that guy. Is that you? Hi, this is Doug Pratt, a land planner with the land studio with working with uh the Glenwood Springs Mall on this project.

Doug's gonna share a screen presentation, but you guys can do yours first. Thanks. Who is that guy? Who is that guy? Okay. Hey, Jim. Control Control your audience, Jim. The wild west has begun.

Okay, there we go.

Ready to go. All right. Good evening. Jim Hardcastle, planner, community development. Here to share a planning file with you this evening that we received for a reasonzoning. Uh it's at the Glenwood Springs Mall. Uh the address is 51 027 Highway 6 and 24. It's uh a grouping of seven lots or tracks that are part of this resoning this evening. Uh the tracks A through F are those that are you uh presented as commercial lots. G is just a parking area just to the uh west of Alpine Bank in the quarter there. So it's a lot that's uh included here but unaffected all to be used in perpetuity for parking. Uh here's the general location if you aren't aware of the mall. Uh this is just a an overview of it. Uh the main item here to be aware of is that the planning and zoning commission is the recommend recommending body to city council for resoning requests. A particular note, the purpose of this uh hearing this evening and your decision is is neither to relieve particular hardships nor to confer special privileges or rights on any person. Reszoning should not be used when a special use permit variance or administrative adjustment could be used to achieve a similar result. And that is why this is in front of you this evening. It does meet that criteria. Uh the staff recommendation is for approval with uh the facts and findings and conditions on page 9 and 10. This general uh idea of a change in zoning from the original PUB to M1 uh the mixeduse corridor uh comes with an idea that and this is this will resound and kind of echo throughout the

presentation that things have changed in that area in town as they have over the last 40 to 50 years. uh and as we take what has been uh uh used and operating in within the PUD to now consider it with the M1 needs to take this into account. The M1 district is intended to accommodate mixeduse development with workable and active streetscapes on W Glenwood's primary roadways. The mix of uses in the M1 district is intended to accommodate lighter intensity commercial districts with limited auto oriented uses compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. The M1 district is also intended to offer a diverse mix of housing opportunities at varying densities. This table's here is here in case you had wanted to inquire uh as to some of the standards. The ones of note here are the minimum and maximum front setbacks of five and 60. Meaning the building itself has to be found within those minimum and maximum areas to some degree, not the entire building. And then the side of five and 10 is established. This diagram shares with you uh an overall view of a combination of city zoning which is lettered in yellow and now that I see it on the screen completely uh indecipherable in that uh M1 district which is the district that we're talking about which is right next to it here to the east uh just past the county. Now the county zoning there are four parcels uh one it which is not sorry two which are not contiguous but we wanted to show that the surrounding area does have a mix of residential and commercial uses also and then the top right hand corner in the northeast has predominantly residential solely residential. Here's another view, an expanded uh

aerial view out to show the city zoning. Let's examine that a little bit further. The area that the mall is proposing to reszone to is the M1 mixeduse district, which is in that pinkish area to the east throughout the entirety of 6 and 24 there. Within this review, the intensity of development in the new zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts and substantial changes in the subject area and they warrant a zoning change. That idea is predicated on the on the fact that as development has uh increased in this area and over a long period of time as businesses have popped up uh the mall can be included within that small area in West Glennwood uh where businesses are are and can be very successful uh and and the the mall can be considered no different. Further, since the establishment of the original PED, the nature of the surrounding community uses, intensity, and level of infield developments support the change in zoning. The Glenwood Springs Mall development has grown in step with other commercial uses throughout West Glenwood Springs. I'm not going to go through this entire table. This was in your staff report. It just generally states what was in included and created within the PUD. And that is uh 10 specific and non-specific permitted uses by right. When you read those uh sale or rental of goods and services, public and private offices, movie theater, retail business, and light commercial uses, restaurants and game rooms. Now, that doesn't seem like a whole lot, but it does open it up to quite a bit more. How uh why and how those have come in or may not have come in over the years is not a question

here. the idea that what the M1 offers is more specific and dynamic and allows a resoning to help uh do something uh for the mall and for the community which potentially is to revitalize it by making some of these opportunities more visible to tenants and from the owner's perspective more so when you're you're looking at trying to market. Uh if you'll notice that in the yellow and the yellow and pink transfer over to what it is that I've also noted on the uses table in my staff report and that is the uses permit are in yellow. The conditional are pink and you'll notice that there are none. Parking uh requirements have dropped over time from 5.5 to 4.4 spaces per thousand ft of leasable area. And I'll I'll connect up with that in a moment with a table that the applicant has shared with us that compares current zoning to proposed M1 zoning under those requirements. I am not going to read this entire table. What this shows simply and I miscounted in my staff report because I didn't include all of the zoning allowances that were permitted. Some will never be uh included here because they are residential in nature. they are uh in homes uh and unless this is entirely leveled and homes built, they won't ever be used. But I decided to add them up so in the future when M1 comes up, this is what you can take with you to the next case at a next meeting. 64 allowed uses in 22 different categories are permitted uses by right in the M1. 27 uses in 16 categories use categories require a special use permit. And in some of these, you'll notice on the left

and right side, uh I've I put them there just as an acknowledgement. So on the left side, midway down, it says marijuana business commercial. Since we were just talking about it, thought I'd mention it. Zero opportunities for a permitted use in that district. But if you look over to the right, two uh uh are commercial uses. And I didn't break those out. And so I I'm not prepared to go into them unless afterwards during questioning you'd like to. I do have the table and I can bring it up on a on a different uh file. In general, when you look Oh, and I got covered up there. Uh I was just basically showing you that I I had tabulated everything from the table, the use table out. Uh and in in response to a review of that table, the proposed resoning meets the intent of the M1 mixeduse corridor zoning district and the intent of the municipal code. Additionally, the evolution of the M1 zoning district has classified and expanded uses that are suited to such a a transitional commercial district. meaning that uh when and you'll see this in the findings that this does meet the intent of of what it is that we're talking about with the uses that are in place. Now, uh I will let the applicant talk more about this if they would like to. I don't think it really merits much discussion. I just wanted to be able to bring it up in case we needed to refer to it. Uh but it it clearly shows that there are some uh that there are parking spots that make their way all the way around here. Uh and then you've got these four retail businesses. This is Alpine Bank, Planned Parenthood, Bigo, and O'Reilly Auto Parts. And I believe they have been there, all of them have been there for quite some time. This is the track G, which is parking only. This is the parking table that I was referring to that indicates and shows

that within the PUD at this time uh there are 919 spots required by the leasable space uh with these values over here. They have,235 that are uh presented and provided. So they do have an excess. Whoa, excuse me. They do have an excess. And with the same evaluation uh generally with M1 zoning in the table below you can see that there is a a smaller amount that is required. Uh there was an adjustment by a couple of lots in the spots provided. Uh and I'll let the applicant explain that with an overall uh extra number of parking spaces of 355 as opposed to 316 under the current zoning. This is a small diagram to help you understand about the non-conforming setbacks that are created through this property. This is tracked E and F. This is A, B, C and D. This first line identifies the five foot setback minimum and this is the maximum of 60. This is where the buildings were intended to be located with this zoning district which was in uh created after the PUD. So the in the intent was to bring buildings closer to the operating public with uh vehicles, buses, multimodal transportation, bicycles, and walking to not make these lots so uninviting and big. Now what has happened here is that the buildings in tract E and F are legal non-conforming. However, if they were to expand and put additions on say uh track F, put a canopy, an extension canopy built out from the building to welcome visitors into an an entrance, that would

be minimizing the degree of nonconformity of that setback and and that would be allowed. If they wanted to trim back the building, that would not be allowed. the four businesses in the in the south A, B, C and D tracks uh all are within that. So they are legal conforming. They are legal uh businesses with the right to apply for building permits to modify their structures uh within the confines of uh standards and and development requirements. There is uh there was a determination at our pre-application and application meetings that as visitors to these sites enter into uh the mall, if you can see my cursor, they'll move this way through and the entrances to all of these are not facing 6 and 24. So although they do adhere to the uh the six and the five and 60 setback uh requirements, what they do have is a reverse setback of a 25 on the front because they are uh fronting on an axis that has less intensity than a primary access or than a a primary arterior arterial. So when it comes down to it with with sub with setbacks and nonconforming structures on ENF as we move forward, this resoning is not compromised or is not negatively affected by those. They'll just have to be dealt with by the applicants should they come in for building permits in the future. In reference to the comprehensive plan, see that? Let me move that. Uh I I just wanted to give you some feedback on the overall area which is encapsulated in this figure. Uh with a review of of the comprehensive plan as you know there are

so many sections to take into consideration but generally with my review uh the proposed resoning generally meets the vision and goals established by the comprehensive plan. It supports the future land use map falls in nicely with that. It meets the intent of many aspects of the PLA of the plan framework and meets the intent of the municipal code. In addition to that, uh all reviewing agencies made comment at our meetings and were not substantial enough to have to list here. Uh everything just was set on the idea that anybody bringing a building permit or a land use change forward in the future will have to contend with uh the things and the items that were of note at that time and most of it was uh just utilities and infrastructure parking uh which which we just discussed at the time. The only thing to add on to that is to u let you know that I did receive a a public comment yesterday from Glenwood Partnership LLP. They are the the folks to the north in the Cooper Minor subdivision. They're in the county, but they're not objecting to this at all. They support it wholeheartedly. They just wanted to make us aware of the two documents that had been recorded in an easement and a reubdivision which establish uh access easements and utility easements throughout the property and just wanted to make sure that those were observed and and we were aware of those as development moves forward. The reasoning criterion findings are are a list of four and as you see here I and I'd like to read through them if if you don't mind. uh the resist the reasonzoning is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the purpose of this code and and actually the findings are items that I've read to you throughout uh the document that I'm presenting to you at this point. So it reiterates and it supports uh those

statements. The reasoning is consistent with the proposed purpose statement of the proposed zoning district. Substantial changes in the subject area warrant a zoning change, and the intensity of development in the new zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to surrounding properties or the neighborhood. Your op options this evening are to approve this item in front of you, approve with conditions, deny the application, or you may continue the hearing based on the idea that you need more information to make a decision. The staff report is uh in front of you with a recommendation for approval of the resoning request with findings and conditions on pages nine and 10 of the staff report. Uh suggested conditions. Keep doing that. Sorry. uh suggested conditions uh are listed here. Applicant shall comply with all verbal representations made in the public hearing is and that's something that you've seen before and also within the materials and applications. The applicant shall provide a recorded copy of updated covenants for operation, maintenance, and reciprocal agreements previously established in the reception number and date provided there. and any future development as a result of subdivision within the proposed resoning area covered in this application shall comply with all requirements contained within our development standards. Uh there might be discussion about number two and we're more than welcome to uh clarify that before we move on. So that that will be something that you'll want to contend with potentially in your uh motion. uh and then uh an alternative motion for you to consider if uh you are not leaning towards uh approval this evening. Uh the two things that I I do want to uh touch on really quickly here uh back at the resoning criterion findings uh as I read

to you throughout this presentation, these sections in pink were amended after your staff report because I failed to get them in there on time. Uh, so they they just lead to a more robust finding and I wanted to make sure that that is adjusted within your motion if you see fit. Other than that, I don't have anything else. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to take them. Okay. Thanks, Jim. Um, questions for [Music]

Commissioner Cyperling. I uh remember hearing about an urban urban development authority that was working on the mall. Is that still in existence and is that relevant to this conversation? It it is still in existence. The urban renewal authority um it's not relevant to this conversation. It's more of a financing tool than anything else and so doesn't have any regulatory authority or authority over the property. This is strictly the property owner. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner White. So, um, are all the parcels owned by the same individual? They are not. They are not. Okay.

No. Uh, Frank Wood, the the the primary applicant who's with us this evening, owns E and F in two different LLPs.

Uh, and then the four to the south are separate owners, but they are all collectively here as applicants uh in in this movement. Okay. Um, and I see that any sort of future project would need to conform to the standards, parking standards, and it looks like there's excessive parking at the mall specifically. Um, is there a use, of course, like we all kind of talk residential type uses. Is there a use that would be like a mixeduse situation where you see parking um in the future not being sufficient? And I again I know that it's a little irrelevant tonight, but um I'm just curious.

No, that that's a good question. I I think it's incumbent on the owner as they develop, redevelop, maybe they subdivide, maybe they build up, depending on what they do, it's incumbent on them to make sure that they have the uh the parking that they need for each successive change that they make

and and has there been any dialogue about whether a residential um use would fit in that space? I'll I'll let them speak to that if that if that would be all right. But uh just to be clear and and this this goes with any development here in town. Once a development entitlement is held by an applicant uh and in this case if they were to move forward with more development let's say on on some of their open space which is taken up not open space open parking which uh would would require them to reorganize their parking. Then at building permit time, we would re-evaluate that and make sure everything is compliant before we issue the building permit.

Right. And I love that landscaping is included in that because it's pretty unsightly out there. So any sort of new

and as future changes are are made out there that are substantial and they are warranted or required within our code, then they will have to uh potentially address landscaping, open space, okay, and other issues. And this kind of is um similar to what Carolyn's asking and maybe you can't answer this, but oftentimes as a commission we see these type of zoning changes or code changes because there's something bigger coming down the pike. And so I guess my question is has the applicant talked to staff about any future projects that they'd like to see at the mall?

I would like to let the applicant talk about that. uh th this was solely at the discretion of of the applicant. They approached us and uh I would I I think it's more appropriate for them to speak to that. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gman.

Turn on. There you go. Can you explain why at the very beginning you said that um the purpose is neither to relieve particular hardship nor to confer special privileges. Um and that's why we're here today.

Sure. You bet. if if they were looking to do something that could be remedied by a special use or by a variance, then we would certainly encourage that and not utilize this tool. This one is a more broad uh look at an established parcel and and it very well could be uh a vacant parcel, but the idea of changing what it is that they want to apply or allow within this area is best suited by a reasonzoning and not by any specific special use permit. which might take a move an application here and an application there and a a way in some cases you have to reorganize or redesign a site. This is almost like a master plan where you can set aside a zoning that apply or select a zoning that applies to the entire site and everybody's aware of what is allowable.

Right. Um, and I'm like, well, I think with the rest of Glenwood Springs, we'd be really excited to see anything there but what's there right now. Like something that would be like you for people that have some like housing. Is that a question? That is not a question. But I mean, my concern Well, I will have to wait to hear to see what the plan is, but there were some remarks about where you said that it would make it easier to market if it's rezoned. Um,

let me let me take those in combination. what what the plan is and for marketing I I think there there are two ways of looking at this. what can be redevelop redeveloped and built or what can be re uh or what can be established on the inside as they decide to market differently to reach out to different vendors, different uh companies that will bring something that either the regional economy needs, the local economy needs or the culture kind of demands it and owners are in charge of that. the city per se isn't, but the zoning sets aside the idea and uh the inevitability that all of those zoning uh allowances of permitted uses that I read read off to you in in brief just allow for that marketability to potential tenants

but not resale. Uh no, this applies to resale also. So you're taking these particular businesses that are only zoned for one thing and not doing well, right? Obviously, and now we're going to not due to special hardships and to but to reszone it so that they can they could possibly resell it for more money because we've now reszoned it because it's probably worth more, right? Now that we've reszoned it,

you can look at it like that. I I think more particular and and to be precise u I mean there is no hardship per se because the applicant can continue business today. He's not being limited in making investments or making moves that improve his investment position. Um when you look at something that's already in the mall, it doesn't mean that that was the only thing that could go in there. Uh it would I it would certainly be arguable that the previous PUB or the current PUD uh limits the the types of uses that can be placed in there or established.

Yeah. And so it's easier to make to to relieve these businesses that are having struggling at the mall. I mean that's just right by reszoning it and now they can resell it because it they could possibly resell it because now it had would have more value.

And so I don't understand why we wouldn't just have them reszone it or or or come up with a plan of what they want to do and then have like variances and reszone it that way. That's almost impossible to do because you can't talk to tenants about what it is that they want, get their consent, then come in for the special use permit in such a fashion that makes it easy for you to do business as the owner. Yeah. And if I could jump in just in um redevelopment at large, uh we have a PVD that was originally approved in the county underneath county regulations in like the 70s.

Yeah. which has very little to do with anything we do by way of modern standards. And so from the standpoint of the city administering the redevelopment of this property, things like a reszoning to remove that PUD, that old antiquated PUD that is, as you guys will recall, PUDs are sort of specialized zoning separate and apart from what you would normally do to achieve particular ends. So, what we're really dealing with is a PUD that was designed in the 70s by the county for the benefit of this particular indoor mall at that time versus 2025 and thinking about how we want to see our community redevelop and what's the appropriate zoning to achieve that end goal, whether that's this developer or this owner's goal or not. What best fits with the comp plan expectations that Jim has gone over. what fits with the community's vision of how they would like to see and what uses they would like to see redevelop out there. That's the other way to look at this is purely from a the standpoint of what are we trying to achieve, not necessarily even what the owner is trying to achieve.

You good? I'm good. Okay, Commissioner White. Uh, so just to piggyback on that a little, um, so if we reszone the area, does that automatically eliminate the PUD or, um, does a PUD function kind of like a subdivision where it has its own rules and then you will have to go through and eliminate the PUD after the reszoning happens.

PUD is zoning. So this this does away with the PD and maybe maybe we should have been more clear about that that from the structure of PUD is specialized zoning. This will remove that zoning of PUD and all the that and replace it with a standard zone district in the current code. Perfect. And then my other question is um I do recall this being a part of our city's comprehensive plan and our goals for the future of our city. A huge part of our plan. So, it's good to see it on the on the Was that a question? Yeah. I mean, it was cuz he was not he was saying yes. Okay. Yes, indeed it was on the comp plan.

Commissioner Hton, uh, can you give some examples of the redevelopment that would because as I understand it, this even exceeds our maximum parking allowance as it currently sits. It's 125% of the minimum. Is that I misunderstood that? No, sorry. I couldn't hear the the first Sorry. Sorry. That's okay. As I understand it, this as it sits now exceeds the maximum parking allowance in our code, our development code. What What kind of actions would trigger the requirement to come into compliance with that? Like would a change in tenant require that? would uh um just

yeah I think that the probably the first redevelopment application um we would have to start bringing each one of those into compliance whether that was on a subdivision you know if they subdivided basis um which is always a possibility to to look at something I think each one of those new pieces that would come in or the whole thing if it came in as a master plan would have to be compliant with the code so like that excess in parking would have to be addressed at that time Okay, Commissioner Conton, one last question. Right. Um, did you say and I think you did that this is going to be phased, right? Or

phased? Yeah, like with development. Well, no. as development yeah can can phase but I I wasn't alluding to anything that that I'm privy to with with their future development plans or I had a couple other questions but I listen to the applicants okay

white I'm only curious about this and I know that the mall is only you know a small portion of the applicant here but you said they have two parcels that make up them all. Is there why would why would that exist as two parcels and not one? Like is there any benefit to That's probably a great question for the applicant again. Yeah. Okay. Anything else?

Other questions? Okay. We'll hear from the applicant. if you could state your name.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeff Peterson. I'm with Iron Mountain Engineering. Uh thank you for listening to our resoning application. Um certainly appreciate Jim's thoroughess on going through uh what he had to present. Believe we have uh Doug Pratt online and he's able to put the PowerPoint uh up hopefully so that we can have some limited slides as well. I'll try and move through it relatively quickly as a lot of what we uh would be presenting is similar to the city's presentation and then we can get into questions. Doug, are you able to uh share? Yeah, I am. Uh I'm gonna pick the pick the right window for you. So, hang on just a second.

All right. Perfect. Can you see this? Okay. Yeah, if you can just do a slideshow. Okay, I'll give you a a quick next when we're ready. Okay,

so um just an introductory slide. As you are all aware, we're looking at an opportunity to reszone and eliminate the original PUB that was introduced uh in the wall in 1979 to standardize it and uh come into conformance with a standard city zoning within the M1 uh mixeduse on district. So go ahead and flip to the next slide, Doug. Um, as I just mentioned, the original PUD is antiquated. As Carl mentioned, it was developed in Garfield County, uh, and is is no longer very applicable to today's design standards, today's conditions, and what we want to see developed within the city. Uh so moving to an M1 zoning would align with the city standard and it provides a clear framework for uh both current and future development uh at at that mall site. Uh it it would be a first step in revitalization of that West Columbia Mall property uh and provide clear guidance to future development as to what's required and and what is allowed. Go ahead and move on, Doug. So, this is a very similar slide to what Jim presented uh showing that the Glenwood Springs Mall is kind of congruent with the rest of the West Glenwood along 6 and 24 where uh all of that corridor is already zoned as an N1 corridor and you can see it's also utilized over in the Glenwood Meadows area as well. Go ahead to the next slide, Doug. Um, so within the existing conditions, as Jim mentioned, we've got seven tracks there that consist of Planned Parenthood, Alpine Bank, uh, O'Reilly's Autos Parts, Big O Tires, the Glenwood Springs Mall, and the Woodking Property. Uh, as as you've expressed and is very clear to anyone, the property is underutilized and the outdated PUD language uh lacks clarity, on allowable uses, and limits redevelopment

opportunities. Go ahead, Doug. Uh, this is just the improvement survey plat. It's similar to what you've seen previously as to where those lot lines are with the individual buildings and the subdivision between tracked ENF, which I can address later. Uh, you will know, or perhaps you're already aware that the lot line between ENF was recently relocated. It was previously on the western side of the J previous JC Penney store and that was moved into the Wood King structure. Uh and so basically that property line was moved from the west side of JC Penney to the east side to include it into that tract F. Um go ahead and move on Doug. Um so all existing businesses are and within the allowable uses of the table Jim showed. Um outside of the Glenwood Springs Mall and the Woodkang property, the tracks conform with the setback requirements. Um M1 zonings offers predictability for developers in understanding what the city will require and also um again eliminates that antiquated PUD and updates it to align with current city standards. Uh I can talk a little bit about parking but essentially there are two minor discrepancies with Bingo tires and Alpine Bank being slightly short of what is required on their parcel but they have been able to uh work agreements with a frame mall uh where as an example Big O Tires rents a few spaces from excess mall parking um and then any nonconformance of existing build businesses would be grandfathered in um as part of the existing conditions to to the current standards. Go ahead to the next slide, Doug.

Um, so certainly we don't have a master plan that all of a sudden two weeks from now we're going to come in and say, "Hey, somebody is interested in buying a mall. This is going to happen with apartments here or condos there." That that is not what this reszoning is about. This is a a reasonzoning application only. It um it is not a part of a grander plan as of yet. It is a first step. I I will state that residential development isn't uh on the horizon in the near future unfortunately because unfortunately or fortunately dependent upon how how you view it but because of limitations within Ross's lease as I'm sure perhaps you're privy to. Ross has some pretty tight controls and within their lease language that prohibit uh a multitude of things and residential development is one of them. So, that isn't on the horizon given their long uh long-term lease.

Go ahead, Doug. Um, as I've kind of stated before, this really is about creating consistent zoning framework across across all tracks. It encourages economic reinvestment by providing a clear development requirements for future development. It supports the long-term revitalization of West Colon Springs. and it ensures a public review and input from any future developments in farm planning and zoning and uh you know the city council should a developer decide to pursue that opportunity. Go ahead Doug. Um so again this is this is not a development plan. in a developer would need to come into planning and zoning for a full review and it would also require startup site architectural plan review which corresponds with the landscaping and parking and and other requirements that we've already discussed. So moving forward, Doug, uh this should support smart growth in an underutilized area underutilized area and it improves clarity as discussed and strengthens West Glenwood as a community. uh and commercial hub. So I think that pretty much wraps it up. Uh so I just request that you look at the benefits of what this would do for the mall property but more moreover for West Glenwood and and Glenwood as a whole then we can move into questions from there. I think we got

Okay. Thanks Jeff. Um, okay. Questions from Commissioner Conton. Hey Jeff. Um, how long is the I'm curious with the Ross lease? I didn't realize it was there such such a stronghold. It has been a challenge. Uh, I believe they have two more fiveyear extensions, three. So, it's a it's a significant I didn't realize they were the month. Um, and then is when you mention grandfathered into the other businesses, how long is a grandfather in or is that forever?

Well, it's indefinitely until they were to come in with a change to that use. Okay. If they were to modify a building or or otherwise that would need to come into conformance or, you know, a variance would have to be requested for a specific uh non-conforming item. Okay. That's it for me. Commissioner Gin, um just another question. Hi De about the um housing. So the Ross contract says tracks A through F are not allowed to have any housing or just the two tracks that are inside the mall where Ross is? I

believe it would just be the uh two tracks that are controlled by all property owners. Perfect. Thank you. Commissioner White. Um, so I'm just curious about the two parcel thing. You've got a building that kind of spans both of the parcels. What is the benefit of keeping them as separate parcels and not merging the parcels? Well, obviously that was how it was originally laid out in a in a grander sense, and I can't speak to all of the ins and outs and nuances of it, but obviously Woodking has uh greater tenant occupancy because there are some relief from the conditions within Ross's uh ah

language. Okay. Okay. Outside of uh within the Woodking building the vacancy rate is much higher. Got it. Um, and then just curious, um, I know there are a lot of parcels a part of this kind of spearheading this out this resoning. Um, is is the mall owner shouldering the costs of this or the cost um to apply for this being spread out?

Uh, this is solely an application by the mall. Okay. um and entirely comp paid for by that the mall. Um we spoke with ownership of the other parcels, but it is not something that was determined they had to necessarily provide authorization for to be granted a reszoning. Right.

So, um I I have a follow-up question just on that. So, did you know there's no public comment? So if the application was with for E and F, so A, B, C, and D, um, was there any, you know, we haven't gotten to public comment. Maybe it's there, but that we had, we saw no comment. So I'm just, are they with you or a guess? You know, where

we really didn't see a affirmative or a negative. Um, I went to Alpine Bank personally, spoke with John Steelsreed and gave him the information. uh he was going to take it to their ownership and get back to me if there were any concerns. Uh didn't receive any. Went to Planned Parenthood multiple times. Uh actually have a meeting with them tomorrow um to discuss further but again did not receive any negative comment. Uh brought information to Orurelles. They uh were going to forward it on to the ownership because they are a tenant in that space. Again didn't see any uh returned com communication negative or positive. And so, um, I believe based on that lack of negative feedback that they are with us, but I I can't

speak to it beyond that. Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Gman. And so, um, Planned Parenthood and Alpine Bank own the buildings. Are both Bigo and O'Reilly tenants then or are they they're not represented here? That's correct. I believe they're both tenants. Yes.

Yeah. But they're the owners are not represented here. Okay. other questions? Um I I have one and maybe this is more for Jim, I don't know. But um so the the M1 zoning um and you know as as we saw from both of the from both of the the site plans from a large scale runs up to the to the east of six and 24 which you know this seems very contiguous with that. So that that makes sense. But so what about up Melray? So and and I don't know exactly where that stops. And then as you go up Melray where there's businesses up there, auto body, some rafting company and some other things like that are up there. So is that is it does would would the M1 spill into that area or is that already M1 or Anyway, you understand my question?

Yeah, you bet. Let me let me bring that that zoning map back up. See if we can't get to correct. So, what is it you're talking about? Should I leave that one up or this one? That one. Probably that one. Probably this one. Okay. Because is it it I guess what I'm Yeah. Well, touching. Right. Right. So you have as you move north along Melray, then you come in contact with a number of commercial ventures, but that's all county. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, this is this is their commercial limited. Okay.

Zone district and then and then some residential dispersed up here, I believe. Okay. So So I I I guess my question I think this answers my question then. Just to the east of the mall is is M1 which goes up Melray already for all of the city owned property. There you go. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Just uh for what it looks to be I think four parcels or three, right? But that's already M1, correct? Okay.

And then is is the um was the Glenwood Partnership is that the new storage units? Is that what that is to the when you mentioned them earlier? Okay, I don't have any other questions. Um, Commissioner Conton, I just have one more for you, Jim. Um, can you speak to a little on the for number two on the uh condition condition for approval just a little bit just updated covenants for operation, maintenance, and reciprocal easements?

You bet. So, that that's something that we talked about in the uh pre-application. it it didn't necessarily come back up up up again in our application meeting. U but I I was hoping for further clarification as to whether this needs to be uh executed or not are you are you asking me could you because I don't know could you state your name? Sorry Chad Lee. Um good to see you guys. Um that was my exact question I was going to ask. Um, I don't think we need to mess with the covenants at all. We're just rebuilding it. So, I don't recall discussing that. So, I would prefer if that condition were.

That's right. Next. That and my apologies that for including That's okay. I I just wanted to make sure because Oh, that was a good good catch. So, Carl, do you have any comment on that? Okay. Any other Commissioner Commissioner Gman? Um Chad, could you explain that more? I don't quite understand what you mean by nixing the covenants.

I I think it was suggesting that that condition could come out. There is a recorded copy of the covenants. To the extent that they would be modifying those covenants, we would like to see a copy of those, but if there's not going to be the representation is is that the covenants as currently drafted and recorded are not going to change, I don't think we would need to have that as a condition of the resent. So the parcel will still be encumbered with these same covenants after the resoning. And if we were to go through a future subdivision or development, we' more than likely need to revise those covenants and we would do it at that time, but it doesn't need to happen in this resoning process.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? And I guess Jim here is standing up there too. Okay. Um, thank you very much to the applicant. Oh, Commissioner Gin. Jim said that we could ask you what your plan is with the um, resoning. So, I was wondering what the plan was.

Well, as as I stated, it really isn't a plan yet. This is a a tool that provides clarity for someone who wanted to develop it to come in and understand what the rules were, what was required, what was needed to meet those city standards architecturally, landscape wise, parking wise. Um, and so unfortunately there isn't a master plan here yet, but I think it it paves the way to start that conversation. And with Ross's um 15-year lease, can the property be sold with that lease or do they have the lease and the property can't be sold with the lease? The property can be sold. It would just be uncovered by the terms and conditions of that lease.

Okay. Thank you very much, Joe. I like the underutilized. Okay. Um, any any comments from the public? See, I don't see anyone any hands raised up there. So, okay, we'll close public hearing. Um, okay. Now, we'll bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Connorton.

Uh, yeah. I'd like to make a motion to approve action item one um uh to consider approval of reszoning according to criteria found in section 70.060.040. [Music] I know that by heart and reszoning to allow the establishment of the M1 um with the recommendation and findings on page nine striking number two um which is the cons uh concerning the uh covenants the condition number two condition number two yes

and what I also I'd like to suggest uh with the add-on of of what I had supplemented the two findings with in Yes, but including the two findings. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, we we agree. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Connorton. We have a second. I'll second. Commissioner White seconded. Um, okay. comments amongst us.

Commissioner White, I'm thrilled to see this. Um, 10 uses for a property like that is ridiculous. And so I think this is a long time coming and I'm excited for our city very much in support of this. Okay. And thank you for shouldering the burden of I don't know if you're the owner, but thank you for shouldering the cost and and making this happen.

Thanks, Joy. Commissioner Cyperlay. Commissioner Cipperly. I also feel like uh extending that M1 district farther west along um highways 6 and 24 is really logical and absolutely in compliance with our comprehensive plan which was based on a lot of input from our citizens. Um I think this might offer hope for a little revitalization in that area. I'm going to have to reconsider Ross. Um and that also makes me wonder how you know how a lease on a tenants's property can affect things like residential development, but I'm sure that's far above our pay grade here. Um, I do feel like this M1 zoning is absolutely appropriate and um I wonder if um any future plans to annex that county parcel behind there would similarly be M1, but that is a hypothetical question.

Exactly. Um, other comments? Yeah, I'm also strong support. I think it totally makes sense. It's rolling to the west, you know. It's makes a lot of sense. It's, uh, it's a it's a great thing to see after all this time. So, um, and it'll be interesting to see what the development plan is and all the fun and games that come with that. So, um, any other questions or comments or Okay, I'll call the question then.

The motion passes unanimously. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks, Jim. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, H. Um, I have a request for a five minute five minute Intermission. Okay. See you back here at Bingo.

No, that's right. We as citizens, right? Yeah. Good luck. Last one. I was going to say it's going to be a short, but this one arms. results.

sidewalks. Um, Mary K. Watkins.

Yes, sir. And just give me a minute to ceue up the presentation. Pat it up. So, what we're doing tonight considering a code amendment is something that you all are very familiar with. Uh we do a lot of code changes here in Glennwood uh if not always about this exact topic. Um and so tonight we're going to be talking about code amendment regarding when and where we require new sidewalks. Uh we required new sidewalks when there's new development. Obviously when there's no sidewalk existing on the adjacent rightway. What you're doing tonight is creating a recommendation that'll go to city council. And so regardless of your decision tonight, whether you want to make a recommendation or recommend no change, this will go to city council. So, um, we're just going to ask for a motion regardless of what you decide to do tonight. Sidewalks in Glenwood are required with new development. Uh, when one of two things happens, when there's construction that involve changes to more than 50% of the exterior walls of a building or when there are structural additions of 500 square feet or more. Um this is so this is about new development. Uh this is when there is no sidewalk present on the street. And I want to mention that there's also a fee in loo option for providing sidewalk. And I'll talk about what those numbers are and um uh kind of how that functions as a as an option here in a couple slides. So sidewalks are important for lots of reasons. um when we we want to have a community that's that's walkable because walkability means that you can you're

more connected to your neighborhood and you can safely be more physically active and healthy. I was at a presentation in Basalt last night where a developer um was talking about is um he's a kind of a a walkability developer company that they do a lot of interesting and unique projects and he cited some statistics that 98% of people in Gen Z um our youngest generation want to live in a walkable neighborhood and even in the baby boomer generation 69% of people want that. So, um, obviously walkability is something that we all want. Um, and it's a good thing. Sidewalks are kind of the bare minimum when we talk about walkability. That that's what we want to cover before we even get to more kind of forward thinking and aggressive things like uh detached bike lanes and underpasses and overpasses and road diets and other things like that. Um, on the other hand, ADUs um, and by ADUs I mean accessory dwelling units. I hope everyone's okay with me using the acronym tonight. Um, ADUs is kind of how this uh conversation came about. This was requested by city council um as a method of reducing the barriers to building ADUs. When people build a detached ADU, usually it's more than 500 square feet triggers this requirement. Uh, ADUs are important if not the most important necessarily um segment of our housing market. They provide uh rental income and ways for multigenerational living um to happen, ways for people to age in place. So ADUs are something that we want also. We have therefore sometimes uh kind of a conflict. We want to encourage ADUs which are expensive to build. We don't see a whole lot of ADU production in Glenwood. Um but at the same time, we want the sidewalks. So let's look at what our comprehensive plan has to say about both of these issues.

Uh when it comes to reducing ADU barriers, um we our our comprehensive plan has several goals and policies and actions that are in favor of it. We want to increase housing density. We want to encourage accessory dwelling units. Period. We want to consider policy changes to increase ADUs. We want to address barriers to ADUs such as parking and consider policy changes to increase ADUs and housing strategy. And we want to provide a diversity of housing types. These are all uh policies that are very in favor of ADUs and reducing barriers to creating them. When it comes to sidewalks, we also have many goals that relate to them. We want to enhance the pedestrian bicycle network. We want to improve the Glenn Springs multimodal system and urban trail network, including bike and pedestrian connectivity throughout town and filling sidewalk gaps between neighborhoods. This is all quoting verbatim from the comprehensive plan. We want to create a complete streets policy to encourage alternate modes of travel. All transportation infrastructure projects need to include elements to provide safe and efficient use by pedestrians, especially children, non-motor users, bikes, ebikes, wheelchairs, etc. We want to support the expansion of green transportation options and promote a multimodal mobility network. So, I think it's pretty clear that the comprehensive plan supports both of these goals. Our recommend our recommendation tonight from the community development department is to not make any changes. Why is that? We while both of these things are goals of the city um we have fewer tools at our disposal to build new sidewalks. It basically happens in two ways. when there's new development that triggers those those two um points that I mentioned earlier or through big city projects like hap like is happening on Blake Street right now. So that's a large capital expense uh that takes a lot of planning by the by city staff. Um and when it happens all at once uh

obviously there are impacts to uh to the city and into the neighborhoods where that happens. Those are the only ways in which we really get new sidewalks. With ADUs, we have a few more options. Um, many of them we're doing right now. Um, we're uh creating some pre-approved ADU plans and applying for grants to do more of that. Um, we already do things like reduce the uh the uh costs for uh the cost of of um the impact fees when new ADUs are built. We've done that in the past. So, there are lots of ways we can incentivize ADUs and reduce barriers to them, but not as many ways. there aren't as many ways to build new sidewalks. That's the reason for this uh for for the recommendation. If you guys want to go a different direction, made some options for you guys to consider. One could be to increase the threshold of new development. If you remember from that early slide, right now it's new development of 500 square feet. You could increase that to a thousand. And by doing so, you would exempt all ADUs because all ADUs are a thousand square feet or less in Glenwood. Another option is you could specifically exempt ADUs from those trigger requirements. You could also reduce the fee and loo amount for ADUs. Um the fee and loo amount for uh a 5-ft sidewalk is $60 per linear foot and $96 for an 8ft sidewalk. If you ch if this option um were codified, this would pretty much ensure that um anyone who is subject to this requirement would pay the fee in L because that would be um significantly below market rate if this is reduced any further. Another option is to add additional streets to the sidewalk exemption list. What streets are on the sidewalk exemption list? Here is a list of partial exemptions. Um so streets where sidewalk is only required on one side.

And I'll just pause here for a minute for you guys to read through this. These are mostly streets that are kind of um that don't have a lot of width to spare. So, they're limited in what they could uh how they could be built out. Uh here are full street exemptions. Most of these are located in the Oasis Creek part of town. So, um, the full length of these streets on the list are exempted from sidewalk requirements. All all uh code changes to um the municipal code are required to uh meet these five uh conditions of approval. And I'm going to go through them with you. Um again the the staff recommendation is to not make any changes but if you uh if you were to each of these five criteria you would need to make findings that are affirmative for all of them. Um so this reproduces what was in your staff report. There are some condition some some of these um criteria uh that that certainly do uh support uh changes to where when sidewalks are required and they're stated here number one and number three. Um but all five need to be uh you need to make findings for all five to be true um to recommend approval. And with that, I'd like to take any of your questions.

Okay. Thank you, Watkins. Commissioner White, so explain how this works in real life scenarios. So say I'm on a street that requires sidewalks. Um, but say there's really no sidewalks that have been put in place, but I am going to be required to cuz I'm putting in my ADU or what have you. So, does just in front of my home have a new sidewalk then if we do not uh allow them to do a fee in L. Yes. And it would look a little bit weird. This has happened in other places though. And believe me, we get this argument. We have this conversation at least a couple or a few times every year and they say how could you allow sidewalk just in front of the house that doesn't make any sense. There are some examples where you do it peace meal and eventually it becomes a network.

Got it. So it can happen. um if they're if they're if it truly doesn't connect to anything and there's nothing even close for it to connect to, we would be as staff more inclined to push them toward the fee and loo option um which is um allowed by code but only upon approval by the city engineer. Okay. And then the other question is are are those fee and loo funds being used for sidewalks in the future? Yes, specifically for them. And what are the Are the fee and l you said right now it's $80 or 60 per $60 per linear square foot for a five foot sidewalk.

Okay. And you said those are are under um actual market costs. What what what are the costs? I wondered if you'd asked that. So, with a five- foot sidewalk, um, our engineering standards require 4 inches of cement. And when you don't account for, um, the demolition of whatever's there and the site preparation that has to happen, when you exclude that, it is actually right about market rate.

Okay, we have some pretty good data right now because the city has been building sidewalks, so we have some new data. Um it's about right at market rate for those five foot sidewalks, but that's excluding the cost of the demo and site all the site work, the site prep. Um so under market rate when it comes to those 8oot sidewalks which are required in commercial zone districts, um it's under market rate even excluding the demo site prep. Okay.

Commissioner G, can you just do the math for me then? So if you have a What's a normal size lot in Glenwood? Like 50 foot lot. How much is that for to build a sidewalk for? Yeah. So that'd be uh 50 times 60 which is is that 3,000? That's 3,000. And that's a that was per square foot or was that per foot of sidewalk? That's per per linear foot per the like? Yeah. The whole thing. Okay. Yeah. But your lot is probably are you three city lots or four? Seven. You're set. You I already have a size, so I'm okay.

Okay. But anyway, I I guess all that the point is is that there are it's rare not not rare, but but 50 is the minimum size. So, a lot of the lots are multiple city lots. Commissioner Sipperly,

I actually have uh some experience in dealing with permitting and ADU and the sidewalk requirement. Um it it was about it was a corner lot. So the cost for the fee and L was about $8,000 and the total for the ADU was only $300,000. That was a significant part of of their budget. Um it wasn't declared at first. It came sort of came about later that in order to proceed with the permit, they had to either build the sidewalk or put in the fee in lie. Now part of the issue was there was no place to put a sidewalk. Um I I have concerns about the engineering's list of exempted um streets and I have been going on this for years. There are certain streets in town that there's no way to feasibly build the sidewalk without really impeding on people's property. For instance, Mter Lyn, um Lincoln, Garfield, like all the way up there. There's nowhere to to put a sidewalk. So, I believe for one those streets should be on the sidewalk exempt list, but then I'm always told that engineering holds that list and it's sort of like they don't let us play with it. So, I'm I'm wondering if we could address some of the the streets that I feel belong on that list. Um, this particular property that I speak of was on the corner of Mter and Selena Street. Now, I don't know if you know where Selena is, but it's like a 50 foot long street that connects Palmer to Mter. So they made their my clients pay the fee in Loo for the sidewalks on both sides of that and within the last few weeks the city did pave that street and they did not put in sidewalks. Um they didn't even put in concrete curbs. So, I mean, I I understand that the fee and loo doesn't necessarily go to cover the sidewalk at the location of the development, and I was trying to convince these clients who are elderly and disabled that their money will go to

sidewalk improvements in town that should still benefit them. Um however I believe that this um sidewalk requirement is um a financial burden on development of ADUs and my interpretation of the comprehensive plan is that it is very important to find um space for housing where it can already be served by you know local utilities and um we definitely like to see infill um and and ADUs do provide a way for people to to keep their own house maybe make some income or move members of their family in has happened in this instance and I would hate to see something as silly as a sidewalk requirement uh impede the ability of our community members to build edus. I could respond to one thing um there. I'm not going to disagree with you there. I will just note though that sometimes um what people consider the edge of their lot isn't always where their lot line actually is. Um, so there are there are plenty of places in town where um the lawn goes to the curb and so they think that's their lot line, but in in reality the um you know there's a few feet of of right away that's that's part of their lawn. So those are places where um there could be sidewalks potentially in the future depending how much space there is and other considerations. I will counter that by saying there are also significant grade changes and heavy tree foliage along these places that that are where the sidewalks should be. And I believe that requiring sidewalks would really compromise the nature of these neighborhoods, which by the way are very walkable. There's hardly any traffic up there. It's not on the way to anywhere, so people do go slow. There's parking on the street, so that slows cars down. Um, and in general, it doesn't seem to create a safety issue on

those less traveled streets by not having a sidewalk. I believe it would, um, probably upset the adjacent property owners if the city were to come and make a sidewalk there against their wishes. And yeah, I I have a process question here just to ask. Um, so are are we running this like a I mean is this a regular public hearing or is this okay? Yeah, I mean you um I mean it is a legislative recommendation so it's a little bit looser, but I would run it like you do every other public hearing you do. Um the back and forth is probably fine a little bit in the moment, but yeah,

sticking to the usual format. Okay. Okay. And I I I guess then and I'm just kind of trying to see how it plays out, but but do we end up, you know, making all of our own recommendations or like if we've done other times before listed here's a bunch of concerns that we have or things that we like and then and then that's what rolls up to city council.

I think it's up to you guys if you have I mean I think I think there's kind of a uh you know staff recommendations to leave it the way it is. um the you kind of have one, you know, one choice there of leave it the way it is or do something different. If you're going to go with do something different, then I would suggest you guys um to the extent you can give some guidance to council on how you would approach that. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Call.

Uh thank you. Um thank you, Watkins. I guess so if if there's a property owner and say things stay as they are um per the recommendation is there an appeal an opportunity for relief for an affected property owner so something is ownorous like we perhaps heard about can they appeal um and ask for relief to to not have to do that? Yes. The way that would work would be a variance which would be decided by y'all.

Okay. Thank you. Um, and another question, forgive me for this, whether I think both you and Emry have kind of championed the the ADU offtheshelf kind of exercise. Um, what's, as far as, you know, kind of looking at what you've kind of modeled, what's the square footage opportunity in those things that you guys have looked at for those detached ADUs? um like the size of the ones that we've looked at.

Well, they're they come in all sizes. I'll I'll say, you know, 200 square feet up to,500 square feet, and we don't allow them that small or that big. So, we um there are there are plenty of of things to look at out there that are between 300 and 1,000, which is what we allow. Okay. And I guess with that then because some of those would trigger this requirement. Have you also thought about what it would look like to package that development concept in these ADUs? So like hey get this and it comes with a sidewalk or you know some kind of incentive or inducement to facilitate that development.

Yes. Um, I think a lot of a lot of that kind of work can come um by education and um making sure that people um people know at the outset what they have to do. Um so we do pre-lication meetings with with people. We always encourage them to come in to talk to us about what their development plans are before they spend any money on on doing things like that. Um, we've worked pretty hard with the uh the software, the permitting software that we rolled out this year to make sure that our submitt requirements, which are the things that you have to give us when you're uh submitting an application. That's an important step in making sure that people know what's coming because if they see something that they hadn't thought of, they're like, "Oh, I guess I need to prepare that." And that makes it so that you're not three months down the line doing your first set of revisions and you have a surprise. That's what we're trying to avoid. Um, but I think your question also highlights that it is it's difficult to do one-sizefits-all. It's one side it's difficult to do pre-approved plans because every lot can be kind of different and that's something that we have to accept,

right? And I guess just kind of also going with that what I was maybe kind of nitpicking with was opportunity to do some bundling, you know, incentivizing some things, right? if if we identified there's a need for perhaps additional ADU development that's detached standalone while also trying to do um the sidewalk. So I guess just curious if there's discussions on any kind of financial bundling or redirection of fee and loo or appropriation of things to help encourage that development just if it's part of that.

Yeah. Um, one thing that we've discussed is is um making more available uh lists of of of licensed contractors to kind of smooth the way for people who want to build ADUs and do these sorts of things. Um, but in terms of of bundling these sort of these sort of projects that are related, these non-conformities that have to get upgraded, not not too much. So there might be something to think about there. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner White.

Okay. So currently, if you are a attached ADU, so like a home that has a basement that's maybe an ADU or or you're redeveloping that space into an ADU, you're not required to put in sidewalk. Only if it's detached. That's right. The only detail I would add is that you could build an attached ADU where you um or whatever. Yeah. Right. So it it's it would be an addition. You could you could build an ADU that way and then that is a way that these requirements would be triggered. But if you're just using the footprint like I think you were uh describing, then you're correct. It would not be triggered.

Oh, so even if you were to attach it, you're increasing the footprint of the home. So you would it would trigger the requirement. That's right. If it were an independent also. Okay. And as it stands, uh, so so council's recommendation was to bring it forward to exempt AD or or they wanted us to look at removing this requirement specifically for ADUs, not for any other development purposes. Correct. I'm not sure they got that specific in the direction they gave us. Um, they wanted us to look at reducing barriers to building ADUs.

Okay. And they at that discussion they did specifically bring up sidewalks. Um but I don't I don't think there was any specific you know do the make this kind of change. But if we pass this it specifically only pertains to any sort of ADU development not any new construction or development on a parcel that would require sidewalks.

Well that depends what your recommendation is tonight. So one of the options that that I presented is um increasing the threshold of development. So not specific to ADUs and if you went that direction then it would still you know any kind of new addition might still trigger that. There are ways to be more targeted and and and identify just ADUs that would be exempt. So that's what you could consider if you wanted to go that way. And that was city council's intention at having us review it. Yes. To reduce barriers to ADU specifically.

Correct. Okay. Um, thank you. And then um could we as a as a recommendation um ask the city engineer to review the city um exempt list and update that as a part of a I don't know if it would be a requirement because this is legislated like he said but but as a strong recommendation that that be put on a task list for that department. Yes. So, if if you wanted to go that direction, I think what you'd want to do tonight is make a motion and, you know, put that in your own words as a recommendation to city council who could direct staff to do that. Okay.

Commissioner Gin,

I have to agree that um I like walkability. I live downtown and I don't even know how many miles I walked with my children. um and the stroller. And so I'm very very spoiled because all of the streets downtown have sidewalks or up on Mentor and um Garfield are very walkable. So I guess I'm a little naive as to which areas need sidewalks. Well, I think it uh downtown was, you know, primarily built in the 1880s through 1930s, call it, and I think it all started falling apart around the 1950s or so, which is not a coincidence. That's when we became more autoentric as a nation. Um, cars started ruling the way we moved around cities. And so those neighborhoods that were built around then and on onward, um, often didn't have sidewalks. Uh, the developers at the time, I can only assume, didn't think it was very important. And as a city, we weren't requiring them when there was new development. So if your question is where we're missing sidewalks, um

that is my question. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There are definitely stretches of of South Glennwood. Um you know, the kind of highway 82 adjacent streets. Okay. Uh I think a lot of Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Absolutely. Um and that's a central neighborhood too. Uh, a lot of West Glennwood also doesn't have sidewalks. Okay. Wild West. Love Westy. Commissioner Counterton. Um, how many sidewalk gaps have been filled under the current trigger system? Do you have any idea? I know it's a it's a tough one. I was just wondering. Just curious.

It it does happen though. It does. Okay. And so also kind of piggybacking off of what Commissioner White said, if we do this, we can make some, you know, like creative like locationbased exemptions such as, you know, some problems that you have on streets where really truly it would be almost impossible to put a sidewalk and things like that. Um, I guess I'm just unfamiliar with like the process. Like does somebody show up and say you can't put a sidewalk here? You got to Well, the you got to part is those is the trigger requirement that we talked about.

Um I would caution you guys against any kind of location exemptions. Um I think the the list that's in the engineering standards of exempt streets is a reasonable way to do that. That's pretty much based on the width of the road and whether it's feasible to build a sidewalk or not. So I think that's that's legitimate if there's truly not right away for it to be there. Um, but otherwise I I I don't want to um make recommendations that would favor one part of the city over another. I think walkability is important everywhere.

I have one more question, I'll be done. Is there a cap on like the size of the project or it doesn't matter? It's just kind of what you said before the math. Yeah, it's just a question whether it meets those uh that threshold and if it does and it's not there then you have to build it everywhere that is adjacent. Okay, thank you.

Other questions or um you know the the only thing I'd kind of like to reiterate a little bit is or say what other people have said. I know on my street, which is not on the exemption list, there's there's a little um 18inch sidewalk that's under the brush that, you know, my dog can use. It works pretty good for my dog. But um I mean, it it it seems like it's it's it's probably double what the exemptions are that are on there on that list would be. So, I think it's a pretty sizable task. Can I I I I guess one thing I would and maybe this is more in the comments that we hold till later, but um it's it it seems like there are places like you know Carolyn or whatnot that talked about that that it it seems like it's an unnecessary burden on on someone on some road where there and people have been there for there's not any lots for new development or anything like that happening. So change over turnover is pretty darn slim is that you have one little sidewalk from an individual homeowner. I mean it's it's not like a developer that's doing a you know an office building or something like that. That's and I guess I'm doing a comment here instead of a question.

It's a question. Exactly. Have you So that's a question. So what do you think about that? No, that was a comment. Okay. I think you've underlined how there are not many tools to build new sidewalks when we want to build. Yeah. I mean, I built a lot of them that are that they ended up being conjoined, but but it was a it was a large project. It wasn't like a 50 square 50 foot. Anyway, okay, that wasn't a question. Comment. Commissioner White,

I I'm sure this is very simplistically stated as well, but I would also like to see I'm sure it exists, but a um priority of areas in the city where that loo money is being utilized and and tackled as a full strip versus um you know, small portions being put up um by homeowners. And I'm sure the city has a lot of expenses, but walkability definitely was on the comp plan. And so I also feel like having individual homeowners who are just trying to put an ADU um in their home b, you know, it's a huge burden to put on individuals when I think it's a massive um goal for the city. And so there should be um maybe a way that the city can figure out how to allocate funds towards that being a priority and it would be far more effective it seems.

Was that a question? That was definitely. So the question is, is there said list of of sidewalks that or areas where sidewalks would be put in with that fee and loo money? A list of kind of capital expenditure projects for roads and streets. Um I'm not super familiar with that work that's been done, but the obvious example that roads and streets, it's not necessarily being used for sidewalks. Then I would have to confirm with how the that fund is set up and the rules that I think it's used I think sidewalk fund is specifically for lightwalks. Yeah. Okay.

I just I just wonder if there is you know a list of areas of priority of putting in those sidewalks. I don't know that but the the obvious project that's happening right now is Blake Street. So that's a project where we're installing sidewalks where there were none in some places and bringing the making them wider in some places too. Suck in the fun dry. We didn't have much to say, Watkins. Any other questions or comments or statements or we need a motion so we can No, no, no. We're moving on. Um, so thanks, Watkins. Got to be veryated on here.

Well, we need to hear we need to hear from the public. I mean, we're going through this so it's time for public comment. I don't know if there is anyone from the public here to give their input. Okay, looks like there's no one. I see no one online. Okay, so now we you know bring it back to us and and and and I think we can I don't know. We've kind of talked about many many things. So, so it's it's but maybe not so many things and and so so maybe we want to list the items that we've talked about. Um or you know I'll toss that out or you know if we look at the Watkins Yeah. Watkins, why don't you put up your put up your your approval thing again and then and then and then you had a couple options too, right? the increasing to a thousand square feet and and drop in the field.

Okay. And then we can discuss it. Okay. We don't have to go with the motion, but Okay. I will make a motion to approve planning file 2325 code text amendments to title. Um you're approving it. That would be no changes. So, uh, no, I'm approving it not as written, but I'm approving it with a re a increase of staff's recommending no changes. I understand that. Or do we have to make a new motion? I think that's what she's getting at. It's an approval with an amended with with a thousand square foot increase to

I I was just going to say I mean it really you're making a recommendation whether you want to you don't necessarily I I would just frame it as a motion to recommend council adopt perfect and then fill in whatever you're going to say. That makes more sense.

Okay. I don't need to restate the the planning file. Um My recommendation is to adopt um a new code standard that would increase um that would trigger the requirement for sidewalks for ADUs 1,000 square feet and over. Um, I would also strongly recommend that uh the city engineer review the um exempt list for street rates needing, you know, just citywide to ensure that the the exempt list for these triggers are are um current.

Okay. Um so what I'm hearing is uh increase the threshold to a th00and square feet. Um, and are you trying to target ADUs or is I think as as you said it, it's it's for all development that's a thousand square feet or more just No, I specifically would like it to um be for ADUs 1,000 square feet or um larger. That's the max. Yeah. All ADUs. Exactly. all ADUs

and u but it would not anyone putting in new development um would have to comply with the trigger. Okay. So 700 square feet not ADU an addition of 700 square feet. Yes. Trigger. Yes. You want to exempt all ADUs from Yeah. Yep. And then and then you had uh review the exempt list for the citywide streets. Correct. And also find alternative. Wait, let let's

and and and I think what what what we're going to do, let's kind of come up with our list and then let's go back and just kind of make sure we're all in. We're all in on that. A second and then we can we can hone in. Then we can keep adding. No, that we can discuss it. I think is the procedure. Well, but I think there there's other things I think on the list. So, I think it's not the recommendation is like could be long. Okay. You can discuss it and revise it, right? Okay. Okay. That works. I'll second that. Okay. Now, let's come up with Okay. So, we have the we have this thousand square feet which means all ADUs are exempt. Is that what that is that is that right?

That's that's yes ads. So I I think the if we want to write this out um it would be to stay the same except that we exempt adus. Exempt ads. So why why do I thought ADUs had to be a percentage of the overall build? Not I didn't think there was a capp square footage for ADUs. Um that's a good memory. It is both things actually. So, uh, ADUs are not allowed to be more than a thousand square feet, but they're also not allowed to be more than 55% of the floor area of the main house. Okay. So, they are thousand. Okay.

Okay. Then then we also had though adding on there or that Joy had was the review the exempt list for citywide streets. Um, go back to this to the ones that are to the list. Yeah. Not the full one, but the one before that Wasn't there one with like one sidewalk? Yeah. So, that would be this one. It's short. It's way short. I don't see that lake gap that just got redone by the bus stop. Well, if it's not exempt, then that's why we built it, I on one side.

Well, and then and then I mean also to Conniey's question was wasn't there a second one that did have the sidewalks on on one side. Was okay on one side? Yeah, that's that's this list. These are partial exemptions. So, and there was a full exempt list, right? And then there was a full exemp there was two of them, right? Which is this slide. Okay, let's see if there's So, so first off, what I mean, what what do people think about Okay,

did you add for um as Joy said, uh to establish a list of priority sidewalks where the um sidewalk funds would go because I find it hard to believe that it would be a priority. like in downtown Glenwood.

Okay, Commissioner Hton, just overall I think I have a tough time going zero to 100 on this. We're going or I guess it' be 100 to zero on this. There's got to be some I in my opinion there's got to be some middle ground where maybe there's a cap on the fee you pay or something like that. But to completely do away with it, I think I I struggle with I'll I'll throw in one. Here's here's a thought on middle ground is that maybe if 50% of that of that road already had a sidewalk in,

you know, something like that. I mean, if if if it's less than 50% and I'm just throwing a number out there, you know, let's say you have a row that has 20 houses on it or whatever and if you're the first one, it seemed like to me that's an exemption. But I mean that I I mean I agree with the, you know, if if you build it, it'll happen kind of thing. But happening might be an a generational thing, you know. I don't know. I mean, I'm just What What What were you What are you thinking? I mean, like I said, maybe it's a cap on the fee in L that you pay. So, there's a, you know, up to $3,000, which is would be one, roughly speaking, at least one original town site lot. Um, it could be I I don't know. That's the one that immediately comes to mind for me,

which is like what which is like what Watkins had put out there. That was one of the ones he had as an option, right? A reduced fee. Yeah. Was a reduced 50% fee in L, which would be $30 and whatever the other one was, $50 or whatever they Yeah. Okay. I think that's another one out there. Thank you, Carolyn.

Um, I do know I've seen a map of where sidewalks exist and where they're sort of disconnected. So, I'm pretty sure that exists somewhere in the city's GIS and I'm I'm sure the city is using that, but perhaps we can refer to that to and try and like like both Joy and Commissioner Waller are saying try to increase the connectivity and fill in the gaps in sidewalks where they do exist. Um, I don't know if that sort of goes in with this ADU thing. That's a sidewalk in general. So, I'm not sure that it belongs here in this code amendment. What do you think?

You good? Commissioner Conton. Um I have to agree with um I I don't believe we should go to zero net like they should be exempt. I do think that coming up with a creative way to place a cap or on the fee or that 50% Lou I think that's a great option because um I don't I also agree I don't think that we should just eliminate it. So Commissioner White.

So, what if an a sidewalk exists already? Say, you know, you're putting in a new home on Pitkin Avenue and there's a sidewalk in place, then are you not required to pay anything or do you still have to pay a fee in L? No. If there's a sidewalk, then you're in luck and that is not an expense you have to worry about. Yeah, that just seems a little un I mean, it that does not sit well with me. because sometimes Yeah. I don't know that that doesn't sit well with me. [Music]

Okay. So, here's kind of I'll kind of play this out here. See what people think. I mean, really, we're down to the one your one item is is the do we have them or do we not? And then and then and then I mean, it's like do we do a middle ground? It sounds like we're looking for we get rid of them totally or we have a middle ground that's either the 50% of fees which is probably that's what Watkins was recommending. I mean that's kind of it and then then sounds like secondary things we have are the review the exempt list of citywide streets and then the list of priority sidewalks across the city. Um do people kind of agree with that? Is that kind of the Commissioner Gman?

I do the making a list of priority sidewalks I think would help with the um the fee in lie even if it's regular or reduced knowing where the sidewalks are going to go because um obviously if you pay it that doesn't mean they're going to build a sidewalk in front of your house you know. Correct. So, I think that it'd be nice if people that the city knew where the priority sidewalks should be. Commissioner Sipperly,

along that same note, if we have a fee in loo and you don't put a sidewalk in front of your house, then that money goes to fill in those missing gaps in downtown sidewalks perhaps. I mean it it does make a little bit of sense to assure the city some revenue towards improving the town sidewalks in general even though we might not have continuous sidewalks in all the neighborhoods. So I could see that as a justification for not removing the fee altogether. Um, however, I am I still in a way feel like we should really cut down all the um obstacles to um building affordable ADUs that we can and this is um one tool in our toolbox today.

Commissioner Conton, can the amount be capped at a specific amount? Like all ADUs pay this much. That's it. Period. Not like some pay 10 grand, some pay three grand. Like it's just a set fee and then you're building an ADU. It just goes along with that application. I think city council could do that. Yep. If they have a sidewalk currently or not. Yes. Yes. I think so. They already have one. They pay it anyway. Yeah, that way it would just be really equitable and it would just be amount an amount and you know everybody would have it's just a thought. So that would be a recommendation I would like to make.

Do you have to point out that that would increase the cost of ADUs and other places that have the sidewalks? Yeah, but I mean if we're not asking 10 grand for every ADU, you know, I mean like in Carolyn's case, it that was an interesting case scenario, you know, where it's like that that was a lot of money. Yeah. So maybe if we just have one set fee and then that's the fee you pay and let the city prevail on priorities.

So just a thought. Oh, lots of addition. I was actually just going to say maybe it's something that's proportional to the size of the ADU on a per square foot basis, which is but I don't know if that there's an nexus there to assess a fee on a a square footage basis, but um that would also be equitable and ensure that it's it's sort of based on the scale of the project rather than the frontage of your lot. Commissioner Ken,

thank you. Um, I guess as we talk about this priority list of sidewalks for the city to develop, what kind of limitations exist on the city to actually do that development, right? I mean, imagine if the city had municipal rights away where sidewalks need to be developed. That would be either have happened or being discussed and part of the planning process. So, is this wish list that we're perhaps recommending dependent on private property owner participation and engagement on that? Um, yes, it would it would it would mean lots of things. it would be a new work project for our engineering department. Um, and I want to also say that I I don't know everything that our engineering department does on a day-to-day basis. You know, they may actually have um something like what y'all are discussing, a prioritized list. Um, but it it would depend certainly on on whether we have the rightway or not, whether there's grade that supports it. Um, other kinds of physical constraints to like geohhazards and soils. Okay, I guess here's another kind of question. Is there so say the rightway doesn't exist and something needs to be created there in one of these, you know, priority zones that is either identified or to be identified. Carl, is there any kind of dimminimous exemption and kind of the current um as we interpret things with what the city can do with private property owners as far as developing some stuff?

Yeah. No, I mean it's still regardless of how big or small, there's a a process we go through, right? Like we can't take your property without just compensation. And frankly, in developing these projects, um oftentimes it's a um Matt and his department really work with neighborhoods about what they want to see happen and what makes the most sense. Do they have rightway? Does it work with the way the neighborhood works with the drainage, street width, all of those kinds of things? Um, so I think it really is, you know, I mean, you don't always want to say, well, you know, every neighborhood is unique, but every neighborhood is super unique because of the way the town is laid out and the and the elevation changes and topography and all of that. So, I don't have a great answer for you. We always try to find um some kind of a compromise with property owners as we're trying to um do these things and make sure that it it works for the neighborhood to the maximum extent possible. The other upside that has happened that is helpful that I think to some degree your priority list has already been created in that um when we're doing road projects sidewalks are uh integral curbon gutter and sidewalks are always considered a part of that and with the passage of the new the increased street tax. You may have noticed a lot of town is torn up. It's going to be that way for years on end because we finally have the funding to start doing that. So, a lot of those um that prioritization of what streets are getting rebuilt and and have those components is already in place.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner White.

I guess, you know, just another comment I have about not feeling good about the the these fees being tacked on to homeowners in areas where there's not sidewalks. This is not, you know, you can never make an overall statement about um certain or generalization about areas, but it seems like some of the areas that don't have sidewalks are maybe a little less sightly and um maybe have uh a demographic of homeowners that possibly could not afford a sidewalk or um I don't know. It just there's a part of me that feels like it should be seen more as an impro improvement fee like Amy was stating that anybody that's putting in an ADU should just be um I don't know if it would be an improvement fee. I don't know what it would be but but just a basic fee that would cover sidewalks in town. Um, and it would spread the cost out over all development and not just these new developed properties that don't have sidewalks.

Okay. Not unsightly. Oh, I know. That was that was that was a tough one. Yeah. Mine doesn't have it either. I would say it's not unsightly. River Oaks is unsightly. Oh, I guess. Okay. Commissioner C. the extent of the treat streets tax. What does that cover? Is that sidewalk, curb, gutter? We we specifically I mean that was actually a lot of conversation in creating that ballot question is to make sure that everybody understood that when we when we think about streets, it it involves the pedestrian, the bicyclist, the automobile as well as drainage. Well, good. This might be a conversation.

Okay. Um, I guess I'm I'm going to kind of uh let's say I mean we have we have really two things we're talking about. One is do we do it at all? And then second if we do it that's the middle ground, you know that John kind of brought up and then we have couple options in there. So do we want to go first to do we do we think we need to do a middle ground? Carolyn,

I could get on board with the flat fee as a middle ground. because it doesn't matter if you already have a sidewalk or not. You're bringing new people in. They're going to be putting their feet on the sidewalk walking around town. Whether it's in your basement or in your backyard, it shouldn't make a difference. So, I'm in favor of the flat fee for any ADU. Maybe two or $3,000. So, so I guess my my question is, so does that Let me just kind of do Do we need to take a little quick vote? I mean, do we do we want to go to middle ground first before we talk about because I think different than her, but but um do we want to go to a middle ground?

I that's was going to be my question is that I think to narrow you guys down I think you know just a real quick I'm just going to you know do this in the course of the motion but like is there anybody opposed to going to a middle ground? No. Okay. So we're middle grounds. Okay. So so now so we go on the table. That was where I was going. That was what I was trying to get to. That That's what I was doing. Thank you, Carl, for helping me out. Okay. Um, so we're at middle ground. So here here's some options that I that at least I wrote down. One is a fixed amount. You know, one was, you know, fixed everybody. Fixed amount for everybody. Yeah. Yeah.

Fixed amount for everyone. Another one that I'll kind of throw in that John said was uh that that it's it's an amount based on the scale of the project, not not based on the length of your frontage. So, so you know, when when you apply for your building permit, you you give here's what the cost of your construction is going to be, and it's going to be, you know, 300,000 yours was, or it's going to be 50,000. So, if you have a 50,000, I would just say you shouldn't be paying the same fixed amount as someone that's a 300,000. If you have a lot of maybe you had a mother-in-law's unit or something already down there that it's an easy thing to do. Um anyway, that's I kind of threw out my opinion, but that was that was the second one. And then and then we had I think um Watkins had uh what 50%

of of the fee and loo um I think those are really the three and I think John's idea fee and explain how that would play out. Um so I think in that scenario you would keep the calculate the fee as it is. So based on the uh the linear front edge of the lot and then 50% of that. Okay. And that would just be for ADUs only. Right. Would like you all to specify that. Yeah. Yeah. But that's based on your on your on your street fund linear footage. I mean I feel like basing some Oh, sorry. I'm sorry Amy. Oh,

did you have anything? Need to come up with one. Okay, I have one. But

it I the fixed amount. I mean, like in Conniey's case where she mentioned there's seven lots and then that's just if we're trying to promote like this increase of making ADUs be built or people being able to afford them easier and if this and if the obstacle is a sidewalk to me it's like then we should look at a fixed cost so that you know it's it's not going to be so insurmountable because let's say you have seven lots long and you know and she wants to put a ADU up that's going to probably cost her a lot more than say I got one lot really small area and

sidewalks don't cost but I'm just saying like it it can add another obstacle if we're trying to eliminate obstacles um I don't know it's just a thought okay commissioner my my feedback uh was just on I I like the idea of um some sort of scaled fee as well based off of the project. Like I would not be opposed to that, but it seems like basing that on the bud budget of the project is not wise because then you're going to encourage people hiding costs and you know they do already that I know they do it already but but you don't you you don't want to it's like it's like

square footage seems more logical to me, right? because that that is directly related should be should be the same. Yeah. Should be the same relates to your costs. Um but I am also not opposed to the flat fee. Okay. Okay. So So are we between flat fee and and a scaled fee and we put out the 50%. Sounds like it. Sounds like it. Okay. So, we're down to two here. And can we just make a recommendation to city council that they re like consider both of those options? You you could except then I have to do this at city council.

Um I think I think we should I I think we should go through and just vote on it. So So we So So then they know, you know, maybe only one of us is for one and everyone else is for the other. I think it kind of says it, but it's just a recommendation. And and I think, you know, one thing that um I'm sure that you'll do, you'll take all of our comments back to city council because I think we've had a fairly robust conversation really on on the whole thing more than reasonzoning of well and so anyway,

Commissioner G, I just I think that the flat fee is um kind of for me personally I think it's a little radical. I mean, if people already have sidewalks, why would like that doesn't seem that seems like it's changing too much, you know? I can I like the the I know we already crossed it off, but I was kind of in favor of the 50% of the inloo. Um because I do think sidewalks are important. Um and with this new information that the city tax is also going to the street tax is also going to sidewalks. Um, but I would prefer either the 50% in Lou I think is

well let's don't let's don't cross it off. I mean let's just keep it there and we can have you know we can have you know one person here. We can just say here's what it is and here's how you go. You know I mean it doesn't we're not we're making a recommendation. Commissioner Kell. Uh yeah, very similar there. I can't get behind a a flat fee. Um, I mean, we're already doing that in this city with the the recently passed, um, streets tax. So, um, yeah, I just can't can't rally there. Uh, the flat fee and we what what does that mean? Do we have an amount attached to that?

I think I think maybe staff would I think we'd have to let staff kind of come up with something. I mean, it's hard for us. I think as a as a new concept, it'd be pretty hard for you guys to bang out what that should look like right now or we haven't really thought about that.

And and honestly, even though I was a little globe about sending up two things to council, um it may be that you just say, you know, three of us supported a flat fee um to be determined and four of us supported a a scaled fee based on square foot footage. If that's kind of where you guys are at, I think that's fine. Okay. And I I guess really kind of the objective here is right the kind of the competing interests, right? We want to develop more sidewalks for because we believe it enhances walkability, but we also want to decrease impediments and barriers to ADU development, right? So what does that what's that look like? I feel like a lot of this conversation has shifted away from shedding those barriers to ADU development and became like let's get more sidewalks. Let's get more sidewalks. So, um I just caution as we look at this list where that direction is going. Um so I defer to um really staff recommendation on this. I think if there are some opportunities where people need to bring up uniqueness of their property, there's a process already in place to do that. Um I do think it's worthwhile to look at the exempt list to have this the city engineer take another look um and bring forward an updated list. I think that's a good place to start is holistic. Um, and I think that sidewalk question is being addressed by the recent passage of the streets tax.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm I'm going to I'm going to say we have we have three three things that we're talking about. Can we vote twice? Um, no. No, you can only vote once. Okay. But let let me just say here's what they are. One is the Watkins the the the fee in Lou 50% based on linear street street uh keeping it as it is but reducing by 50% or use

so that's that's one the next one is a fixed amount to to be determined by by by staff which would be a large project or a small project everyone pays exactly the same a rich person or a poor person and I'm Ed. No, it doesn't matter. But and and and all of the I would say a reduced fee for ADUs, right? It's like Well, this is only ADUs. This is only So, we're only talking about it. And then and then then the third one is is is a is a scale to be determined by staff or here's what that is, but it's based on square footage of the project. Right. Okay. So, those so those are the those are the three. Okay.

And that third one's without sidewalks, right? The first and third both. Well, well, all all three of them are about sidewalk. So So, but if the house already has a sidewalk, oh, if it already has a sidewalk, we didn't. Then that's that's a fourth one. That's staff recommendation, right? Which is no change. Okay. Away currently in Okay. Do do you already have is is that already in the recommendation that if there's already a sidewalk that there's no do a sidewalk, you don't have to do anything. Okay. So that so that that's okay. Why not?

Okay. So we have three. We're down to the scaled based on square footage fee and L at 50% and and some fixed amount just Caroline and in addition revisit the uh exempt stream. Yeah, those are two other things. I just want to get by this one here. Yeah, I I feel like it's the most equitable to have a flat fee because then, you know, you're not punished for not buying a piece of property that doesn't have a sidewalk, you know. Okay. Um but yes. Okay. Commissioner Gallen, I guess just clarification, are we in that list? Are we saying we want to apply a fee to everybody's sidewalk or not?

Yeah, that's one aspect. Is that if if if someone has a sidewalk already, then then they're not having to pay. That's not number two. Okay. So, that doesn't live in that that lives on in this recommendation. It's not a Well, I mean to me to me it's a fixed amount for everyone that doesn't have a Okay. Okay. Fixed amount whether you have or don't have a sidewalk. Yeah. If you have an ADU, you said Okay. So, we should get that clarified. Yeah. Sorry. So, now we have another one. No, I totally understood. That's the flat fee. That's the flat fee. whether or not you have a sidewalk already. If you are building an ADU, you pay the flat fee. Okay. Because it's not your fault. Somewhere else.

So then that's what that is. That's what I want to see that. So that cl does that clarify I think. So I guess Okay. So, if I want to develop an ADU and I have a sidewalk already, I'm going to be the recommendation is that I pay a fee for a sidewalk development even though I have a sidewalk on the fixed if you vote for the fixed amount. Yep. Yeah. You vote number two. Wow. Okay. Thanks. This is crazy talk. I mean, it's like the school. I think we're making it almost be too difficult. I think we need to just move on.

Let's move on. Can we each just I just want to clarify though that if we vote for one or three, it's only if you don't have a sidewalk to start with, right? Yes. Yes. Okay. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Clear as mud.

Okay. You get you you get one vote. Um the fee and loo 50% of the fee and loo how many hands for that okay we have one okay the fixed amount um for everyone a flat fee we have two three you were having you while we're trying to see okay then based on the scale there's four. So then there's three for that one just based on math, right?

I think I think Cowen was a go with staff recommendation and change nothing. So that's the other option. Charge a full price. They don't have a sidewalk. Screw them. Yeah. I mean that's what you said, right, Colin? Okay. Yeah. You didn't want to change. Okay. Okay. Okay. So let let me let me let me come back. Let me come back and say let me make sure I got it. Okay. One. We have one doing a change. I thought we were I thought we three. I'm gonna go with count too. Okay. You can you can go to count too. You guys together.

So we So So we have two we have two that are that are going with the with the proposal the way staff's presenting it. We have two that are that are based on the um square footage of the project and then we have three that are a fixed amount for everyone whether you're getting whether you have a sidewalk or not. That means you're the square footage guy. I'm the square footage guy. Yeah, I'm like I think you guys have a recommendation. Perfect. We did it. Okay. And then and then and then we have Well, then we have two other things. We have review the exempt list for citywide streets and then we have a list of priority sidewalks for Okay. for the city. I mean, those those are Yeah. And can I Well, I think we already ended my We already voted. We're good. Yeah, we voted.

I think we're gonna call that and and and you know, I I think it would it would be good to have Matt probably. I mean, I guess he's probably always there with council field trip to no Okay, cool. What if there are enhancements? Enhanced field trip. An enhanced field trip that maybe has leations. Okay, there you go. And not and not I'm making no changes. This is We're done. Who are you, Tim? This is how our meetings always run. This is

This is it. Normally it's better when Carl's not here. Okay. Um, what else? What can some Did you get all that? There are some votes and some words said and take it to council. Well, I think No, I think we have Who's taking notes? That's what I'm wondering. I took notes. Well, usually Hannah's over there click click clicking away. It's all recorded. We got it. Jim Jim, are you Jim, did you did you get all this down? You guys do I mean really all all we need we had two for staff, we had two based on square footage. Yeah.

And we had three based on the fixed amount and and and then then we had adding the exempt list and the priority sidewalks. I mean that's all whatever. But what Joy said is correct. I know he's usually like taking I don't know if you got what you wanted or not, but you got something. Good luck. No, I mean really, thank you very much, Watkins. I mean, this is a tough one, and you can tell it's a it's a it's a tough It's a tough one. Lighting would be a tough one.

Okay. Um, okay. We're going to move on then to Commissioner comments, Commissioner White. Second. Okay. Well, I I have a couple. One is Welcome. Welcome, Tim. So, is is this your first time? Yeah. Sitting. So, thank you very much. We're glad to have you here and um hopefully you don't have to stay here real long at the We're sorry. They will. Oh, when you get your update.

And also welcome fill in. Thank you very much. And then also to staff. I'd like to thank staff for doing a good job putting all this stuff together. You know, you know, it looks like your leaders right here. You guys did a great job. So, thank you very much. That's all I had. Um, director comments. I guess Tim, that's you.

Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Tim Burkeman. I serve as the director of operations at the city and also have the pleasure of serving as the interim community and economic development director um, and working with the smart and dedicated and talented team that put together tonight and everything else. Um the big update is is that on September 15th, your new director will start. So you have me for one meeting. Uh the new director is Trent Hyatt. Trent back. Yes. Some of you may know him.

Um but he's coming back to the city and our new director. Yes. He was working at Eagle County as their deputy director and now he's coming back to be our director. He doesn't have to make the drive. Yeah, I hope they had to move to No, he didn't. That's great. That's awesome. Choice. Yeah. Okay.