Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

session, the planning and zoning meeting. Um the meeting is held in person but also uh via Zoom and you can dial in at 719-359-4580 and use the web ID 863 8055264 and we'll have the roll call. Oh, do I roll call first seat after? What? It doesn't really matter, but Oh, come on. Let's do it by the book. I wanted So then I want to really badly.

Yeah, do a roll call. Roll call first, then we see. Okay. Yeah, if you can just say your name for the record to help transcript. So, sorry. We used to like say this out loud for you, but Okay.

I thought he I thought he does. Why don't you just run the Can you run the mic? Oh, yeah, sure. Um, okay. No, I meant run turn him green on your push. I don't have any power. He's not giving me the power. Okay, we'll get you some power. Okay. Okay. Kyle Jones, Patrick Corkran, Amy Conson, Joy White, John Hton, Connie Gman, and is there a motion to seat Commissioner Jones? I make a motion to seat Commissioner Jones.

I second that motion. And we'll just do a a call for vote. All in favor? I I I Any opposed? Okay, welcome Mr. Jones. Done. This is your big moment. Okay. And um is there a motion to receive the minutes from February 24th? Yeah, I can make a motion um to receive the minutes from February 24, 2026. And I didn't see anything that needed to be changed. Any second?

I'll second. I'll second. Yeah. These guys weren't there probably, right? I was there. You were there. Yeah. Pat, you were there. No, was not. You have to. We still have a courtroom vote. Yeah. Yeah. I I I think some people choose that if they were not there to vote on that, but I don't think that's technically outlined in Robert's rules of orders that you cannot. Okay. So, call if you read them and you agree with them, you can Okay. So, we had a motion. Oh. Oh, let's let's hear. Do we have a second though? Two seconds.

Two seconds. Okay. Go ahead. I just want to make sure you guys are aware your edit notes were still visible in the version that's published. Have you checked that recently? He's corrected it. Shucks. Okay. What do you mean certain commissioner? No, I'm just kidding. What do you mean? Thank you. Thank you very much. You can't see his notes. We we we did notice that. Okay. Okay. All in favor of approving the minutes say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? No. Okay.

Um just one note. I will say that that was a very scaled down version of minutes. Um I'm kind of taking the position and long as long as our counselor is okay with that that since we fully record these and post these meetings online, I really don't think that your minutes need to be detailed. Um to the degree about that. Do they prefer that? We probably should have. We'll see how this goes. Um, you probably need to have a conversation at the council level about how detailed they are. Many of my councils still want the planning commission meetings minutes to be more detailed than their own. Okay, I could see why. Yeah, because some people prefer to read them than maybe listen to the whole

when you're when you're when you're preparing for a a hearing that you're looking back on the record. Sometimes that's just easier than you can read faster than watching YouTube at triple speed to see what the conversation was like. Um, so that's kind of it. I agree. Okay. Do we have any comments from citizens appearing for items that are not on the agenda? It does not look like there's anyone online and no one here in person. I'm I'm scanning. I just can't.

Okay. Be right there at the bus stop. Moving on to planning file numbers CDA uh 27 2026 code amendment regarding section 7040 100 exterior lightning lighting and uh section 7040 110 signs. Okay.

Uh Emry Ellson, community development. I'll be sharing my screen. Okay. So, tonight is a code amendment. Uh, specifically what I'll be presenting on is section 7040 for light exterior lighting and 704110 for signs. Uh, so again, the role of planning and zoning commission in a code amendment is to make a recommendation uh for approval or denial to city council. And so city council would always make the final decision on any code amendment. Uh but kind of the role of planning and zoning commission is to re review that provide additional input uh on those proposed code amendments and it's pretty limited. Uh again it's two separate sections of code uh but they are items that have a lot of commonalities. And we started this in January with a work session. And so uh kind of at that work session gave an overview of lighting and sign code and then came back with some recommendations from planning and zoning commission. And so we've identified three specific things. Color temperature, it illuminated sign curfew and gas station canopy lighting, which I'll get into more. And then also included in the staff report was uh some comparisons. So how does our code line up with some other communities? And I specifically picked uh Town of Breen Ridge, City of Flagstaff, City of Moab, and Nucla because they're um for one, they're relatively close to Glennwood Springs. And then they're actually also all officially dark sky certified communities. Um which again, that's a basically a non-governmental organization that promotes lighting uh response responsible lighting policies. So again, those four were picked. Uh you definitely have a variety in size. Nucle one end with Flagstaff on the other. gun would be kind of be in the middle. Um, but you can see in the staff report how even though those are really different

communities, a lot of the policies do uh line up somewhat. Um, so again, just to go into it, first thing was correlated color temperature. And what this means is how that light is perceived. And so you can have light be perceived as warm, neutral, cold. Um, again, that's how your eye perceives it. A lot of times indoor lighting, like at your house, it's going to be a warmer color. uh if you're in an office environment like here, it's going to be actual cooler color. Um now with that um when you have cooler light in general, that results in more of like a sky glow when you have it outside. That's definitely simplifying a lot of uh physics and how light works. Um but in general, cooler the light, uh the more you're going to have kind of that glow. And so when you see a lot of the regulations in these communities, and right now Glenwood, we don't have any regulation on this correlated color temperature for lighting fixtures. So we don't regulate it at all. Um, but what you'll see in these other communities is somewhere in the ballpark between 2,700 and 3,000, which is what Dark Sky recommends. And so again, you can see the range. And then what we're proposing is that uh in and again the way this the town is split up, we split it up into lighting districts. we have one, two, and three. And so the proposal is adding that to basically all fixtures need to be um no more than 3,00 Kelvin per fixture. And so that's the unit of measure that's used to measure color temperature. And so this is the exact code language um that is being recommended to be added. And then same thing in lighting districts two and three. And then just a summary of that, lighting district one is commercial zoning districts, mix use, so more of that intensive commercial use. uh everything in orange and then lighting districts two and three uh yellow and blue. So that's more of the um residential also downtown uh areas. And so again, that would apply to everywhere on the map. So that's the

first item. Again, correlated color temperature. And then the second item is an illuminated signage curfew. And what this means is just that there's a time that you have to turn your illuminated sign off. So here are some examples. and you have signs at night and at some point, you know, most businesses do close and really you're you're not open for business anymore. Um, so maybe there's not as much of a need to have that sign on. Now, currently in the city of Glennwood Springs, if you have an illuminated sign within 300 ft of a residential zoning district, you already need to be turning that off at 10 p.m. or one hour after close of business. So, a business like, let's say you're a bar that's open till 2 am, a hotel that's open 24 hours, you're going to be able to keep your sign on more than maybe um, you know, an attorney office where you close at 5 or 6. Um, so you can see here, so that's what the city already does to regulate. And then when you look at these other communities, they don't look at how close you are to a residential zoning district. It's just across the board. Um, so one thing you know about Glennwood's current regulation is that does uh if you're a residential zoning district close to a business, maybe you have less light on your, you know, in your daily life, but as far as how it affects citywide, you're going to miss out on having that collective effort uh to reduce some of that light pollution. So you can see um different communities do it differently, but more or less they all have restrictions on when that lighting needs to turn off um in different ways. Anywhere between. So like Flagstaff in some parts of the city they have it at 900 pm. Um then you see like New 11. So again just having that idea. Um and then this right here is currently everywhere in yellow is areas of the city that are already within 300 feet of a residential zoning district. So those are areas that are already needing to turn their signs off when they're closed. Um so the areas that would be affected by this code changers everywhere that's not yellow because again it would be moving that to be citywide. Um, so here's the exact language. So, illuminated signs shall be turned off no later than 10 p.m. or 1 hour after the close of business,

whichever is later. And 10 p.m. was selected as a time because that's what we already have in code. Um, so wasn't looking at changing that time just to having it apply citywide. Uh, and then another thing to point out is that if these code changes are approved, what ends up happening is you have a situation where you have legal non-conforming signage. And so you would have a sign that was installed with a permit all to all the regulations at that time of installation, but code has changed. And so a perfect example of this in the city is electronic message boards. Uh they used to be allowed and so then you see them at Culver's, Gree Monkey, a couple other places in town. Those signs are allowed to remain uh as they are. They were installed legally. Uh but if there was any future replacement of the sign, change of the sign, they'd have to meet current code. Um so you know the example is again those signs exist and same thing so anything basically from the date that that code change is adopted going forward is how these uh changes would be applied and so any existing sign would be held to that standard. But the idea is that over time as signs get replaced businesses change uh you're going to see more of that um standard be in the community. And then the third item is gas station canopy lighting. Um, so this is an example too when going back to that correlated color temperature. Just with your eyes, you can kind of tell the difference in these four pictures and how that light you can see some of it's like the shell station looks a little warmer. Uh, ones in the bottom it's a little cooler light. Um, so one one thing too is you see wide variety too in how these uh each gas stations are lit. And so currently in the city of Glenwood Springs, oh sorry, as a reminder, um, how you measure light, the source you usually measure with something called a lumen. And then a foot candle is is measuring what that illumination looks like. So this is a simple version of it. And in the city, we measure everything with a foot candle. And so essentially how many foot candles this illumination

under the canopy, how many foot candles you can have, how bright it can be. Uh so right now city of Gwood Springs we do have a minimum requirement of 5 foot candles for safety and then a maximum of 25 foot candles and then you can see other communities vary it. Uh Moab doesn't actually have a requirement. They look at their lighting a little differently like as far as the whole property but just based on reviewing some of those other communities. U we're just recommending a very small change just reducing that number from 25 to 20 foot candles. Uh kind of fell in the middle. Some of these other communities it wasn't as low as 15. um but it's a little lower than it currently is uh just with the idea that it's a small step to help um reduce the amount of light pollution. Um so the criteria for text amendments uh to code there's five criteria and I'll go through each one. Um so the planning and zoning commission your role is to review this and make that recommendation based on how you think these proposed amendments align with those criteria. And so the first is just that it's consistent with comprehensive plan. Uh there's three specific goals in the comprehensive plan. So, it's called out to reduce light pollution. Uh there's another uh goal that talks about establishing and enforcing a citywide dark sky ordinance and then also energy efficiency. So, again, if lights are turned off, they're not consuming power. And then you also see that reflected in the 2024 energy and climate action plan. So, the idea of kind of reducing encouraging the reduction of energy use. Um and again one thing too just to point out so dark sky ordinance um dark sky is an organization they have lots of different designations lots of different classifications. Uh you could have a dark sky recognized code and not be an official community. So there's lots of different levels. You could have a code and ordinance that really aligns with a lot of their principles and not be an official certified community. So that term I would say is pretty broad but the idea is is you're following their principles of light which is that it's

useful has a clear purpose it's targeted so that's the idea that it's you have like a shut off excuse me a cut off fixture light's not spraying everywhere you know adequate levels controlled so these are their principles um which in a sense that's what these changes um are trying to follow and then two it does not conflict with our other provisions of the code. And so these are are already things that the code regulates. Uh we already have assigned curfew uh just for those areas close to residential areas. Uh we already regulate gas station elimination limits. And then really the correlated color temperature thing that aligns with the intent of the section. It just wasn't included. Um and it really is best practice when you look at those other communities, other dark sky communities that they're looking at color temperature as well. Um three is necessary to address a demonstrated community need. And so these are small steps um to decrease light pollution. Um and then you know the idea is that this is kind of coming from some concerns and conversations um from the community. Also planning and zoning commission council joint session came up. So these are conversations that are are being had in the community. So these are attempts at kind of making some small steps uh towards addressing that issue. and then four necessary to respond to substantial changes in conditions or policy. Um so the lack of the regulation of the correlated color temperature. Um that's something that you know bringing us kind of on par with those other communities. And then it's just intended to respond you know as the community grows you have more lighting. And so having that balance of you have growth in the community versus being able to see the night sky. Uh that's what these are looking to address. And then just consistent with general purpose of the code. These are modifications of existing regulations. It's not we're not adopting an entirely new section. We're not regulating we're not mo moving to regulate something that's never been regulated before. You know, signs and exterior lighting are

both in code already. Um so again, um suggested motion is recommend approval uh with the findings and conditions of the staff report. Uh as always, if you have the alternative motion, uh you need to add your own findings. And then also an option too is to continue an item. And so these are all included in the staff report and these would be the language for doing that. So that concludes my presentation.

Okay. Do we have any questions? He has has not given me the power. I have a question. So because Joy doesn't have the power, I guess I'll go first. Go first.

Um, so just a few things things Emory. So for the targeted because you say it's targeted, right? So um, so I'm guessing there was some differentiation, right, for areas with potential problems. Um, so like nuisance lighting, um, lighting with that contributes to safety because some of the lighting does contribute to safety. Can you speak a little bit to that?

Yeah, I'll see if I can Well, actually here, this picture is actually a great example. So that person has a light in front of their house. Obviously, you want to have feel safe when you get home. There's no shield or anything on that light. So it's going up into the sky. So an example of what we have in code already is having that be shielded. So that would, you know, wrap around making the light go where you need to see it. You know, light 30 feet above your house doesn't probably help you as much as safety as light right in front of you. So this would apply to someone who's doing something like that.

Correct. Yeah. So here's um so like existing code where where are we? Oh, so right here. So this is already what we have. So in lighting districts two and three which are your residential areas, you know, freestanding fixture shall be cut off. So that refers to that shielding what we already have that we're already requiring that. Now the hard part is is we don't reveal electric permits. The state of Colorado does. So if someone wants to say, you know, put in a light fixture on their garage and they're not building anything else, we're not necessarily going to review that. Um so that is a challenge to regulating this here in City Glennwood. Um but again, so then that would be right there kind of controlling it where that light goes.

And you guys deal with those type of um issues on a complaint basis, right? Correct. Yeah. Like if your neighbor across the street installed, you know, something like the light in that picture and complaint was lodged, we would follow up and with is it shielded? What's the lumen output? Um but yeah, generally we're not. Now, as part of a development per package, we are getting lighting plans. We do review those. Um, so when new construction comes in, this is all getting reviewed, but as far as like your day-to-day installation of light fixtures, not so much.

Can you um just explain a little bit more about the sign thing, the legal non-conforming sign thing in the event that this is approved tonight, what that would do for some of those signs?

Sure. Sure. And that it is going to create a situation where let's say you have a sign right now. You have a business uh and you have a illuminated sign and you got a signed permit in 2005 and you've had it ever since and you leave it on 24/7 even though your business closes at 5. Um because you installed it at the time to code, you'd be allowed to continue that use. So it will create a situation where you're going to have basically a zero date of signs from this point forward can't do that. Signs any older than that are allowed to continue just like the electric uh message boards. So like uh Freda has that one and other businesses other restaurants would be well why can't I have that? Code doesn't allow that anymore. Um, but as soon as like let's say that business sells, a different person wants to operate Fritos, they want to make the sign taller, they can't continue using that message board. Um, so basically if you installed it, if you got a permit for it, you're allowed to continue it and maintain it. Um, but you can't make many changes to it. And then anything new going forward is going to be held to that. And then I would say hopefully too is um you know as you know businesses change that's something that we can also catch with sign permits as they do places do turn over. So, I'm being redundant, but you're saying even though you're not physically changing the sign by limiting the time, because they got that sign, it's a it's a non-conforming use and they can continue to use it past the cut off time.

Correct. And then I also think too another good example is any sign that has been installed, if they were within this distance, they really shouldn't have their sign on in the first place. So that's another place where enforcement would also you'd look at that like there's a lot of places in town that would already be held to that standard. So really like none of the the businesses over at the Meadows or Target. Yeah. none of that can be addressed even though um gosh it seems like a limitation of use is so easy to well I I just wanted to point out at at the last meeting

excuse me we heard concerns about how this might impact the business community so we're trying to walk um kind of a fine line of like let's apply this going forward but realistically the impact that we already see is not going to be addressed address by code. It's going to be addressed by really a public outreach campaign to try to encourage folks to remind them that hey, we all appreciate the night sky. This is what we can do to improve it. Let's turn off our lights at a certain time after our business hours. Some of that is already regulated by the code. We've tried to increase that to be any business that's within, you know, sight or 300 ft of a residential unit, not only those residential zone districts, but then also for anything moving forward. We can actually regulate that without having, you know, we could go across the board and say, "Hey, we're going to mandate that every business turn off their sign at, you know, an hour after and go about enforcing that." But we heard concerns from you all last time about you know how does the business community feel about that and you know we might need to do some outreach. So we said we think this is a good middle ground to address it moving forward and then try to get compliance through outreach.

I don't remember saying that. I do. Yeah. I was going to say I think there was some mix like you may not have said that um commissioner but I think there was some discussion around that in general about impacts. So, I think that kind of got us where we're at a little bit. Do you have a question? I mean, I guess to be clear, is that is it we legally can't do it because it's a property rights issue, or is it generally applicable and we could do it, but staff is recommending we don't? I think it's probably the latter.

Yes. I I I mean I I can tell you there was an amorization program in the city for signage that went very badly before I came to work here. So I I really would recommend that you try to gain compliance on this issue as more of a goodwill public outreach than telling businesses what to do well with their existing signage.

And I think I'll also add to trans to use town of Breenidge as an example. They started in 2007 and they said by they gave everybody 15 years to bring their signage, you know, lighting up to code, an amortization project similar to that. You know, they got to now and then they gave everybody an additional kind of an extension. So really, you see two different ways to go about it. Either way, it's going to take a long time because the way it's proposed now, you're only going to get the change on those existing signs when those businesses change, which is going to be it's going to be slow. It's going to be incremental. Um, and the same thing goes if you have like, okay, 15 years from now, everybody has to conform to this. Well, we're still talking 15 years from now. And even then, when you hit that final like deadline, you're still going to have people you're going to have a conversation of, okay, well, what do we do? How do we enforce this? Do we continue that period? Um, so either way, it's it's a slow process,

but you guys are also welcome to recommend to city council whatever you think is appropriate. So just to be clear, um this was kind of kind of picked it as a middle ground just based on some of the comments just kind of thinking of giving, you know, the commission place to start from as with any code amendment proposal. A question. Yeah, go ahead. Um is there any I guess input from public safety? I guess I grew up in a time when they wanted stuff lit for safety reasons

and uh I'm just curious if they have any say or input on this. Not not particularly. Um because again some of this comes from like I would say the biggest thing here is the illuminated sign which when you have a sign there's no shielding. All that light goes straight up in the air. These signs are elevated 15 20 feet. Um so this particular one you know this isn't really security lighting. No, I mean like a parking like I was over in the meadows and then I got out and it was like kind of dark and I doesn't bother me but I have a wife and three daughters so I'm like you know so I'm just getting that kind I see the business side of it but I also see public safety and I guess the second question was is this going to is it cost going to cost more to build when we start building houses or new commercials? Is this more expensive these kind of lighting or is it

cost neutral cost? Yeah. What? So, for the first one is none of these really the only one that would affect I guess safety if you're talking about maximum illumination is the gas station canopy lighting. Um, but one thing too about lighting is more is not more is not always better. You know, if we were standing here in a dark room and I shown a flashlight on all of your faces, you'd be you'd be blinded. Yeah. Versus if I had a, you know, lower flashlight pointed at the floor, everybody could see. And so that's I mean I'm simplifying that. Um but really the only code amendment here would be that maximum output of lighting. And then the second question um sorry what was that?

Just the cost of new construction goes to commercial or residential. I mean is this cost neutral? Does it cost more to install these lights? Warmer lights versus cold lights. I I mean I don't have a background in that. Say about neutral. I mean one way to think about it a very simple way is more lights is more expensive you know. So that that's if there's maximum limits you can't go beyond people aren't going to be spending that amount.

Um and then really a lot of it's just you know usually so for example when we get a lighting plan you'll see a lot of the specs and it's just like here's this fixture and you can get it at 3,000 Kelvin 4,000 Kelvin or 5,000 Kelvin. You know kind of take your pick. Um, so in in general, I would say it it wouldn't have a huge cost. Um, because we're not really just more about what you're putting in and how bright that can be, what color it is. Um, I mean, I guess a comparable thing would be like, I don't know, think of like a water line. Like you can pick lots of different types. You could have a PVC water line, you could have a copper water line, you know, with advantages and disadvantages for either if you're building. So, if I was walking from town and had to go across a pedestrian bridge over toward the Hotel Colorado and then head down through West Glennwood, it's those lights aren't changing. Is that correct?

No, none of the none of the street lights. This is not being addressed, right? It's it's the canopy lighting for the gas station. It's signs and then it's um limitation of use. Correct. Right. And shielding. Those shielding is already in place. Okay. Good. Okay.

I'm just I just wonder like Yeah. Well, because if you go to a gas station, you can't see because the lights are so dim, you have to break out your cell phone. So, but um Yeah. Can you explain again why um like if you were to have a curfew, why like the Meadows wouldn't have to to participate in the curfew just because they built their buildings before today? And so, so all of the existing signs would be allowed to be remain to remain, but as soon as a business would change, like Barnes & Noble,

that new sign would have to turn their light off or one hour later than business. Kind of like how the other cities had like a 15year, like you have 15 years to be able to figure out how you're going to turn your sign off. So, they have some sort of idea of something that's coming. I don't like the fact that they can just stand there forever and never turn their signs off. But I can understand not wanting to be like, "Tomorrow you have to turn your signs off." But you said that you you all tried that previously. Yeah. Well, yeah. The city did. Yes. Yeah. They basically gave up on it.

Yeah. there was so much of an outcry from folks being required to update their signage and lighting that they ended up, you know, eliminating that requirement. But would you have to update or or not enforcing it? Yeah. Yeah. Would you have to update your signage just to turn it off after you an hour after you close?

Yeah. I mean, I think that some of it goes to I mean, there were a number of things in that prior lighting ordinance around type and style of lighting that was that was acceptable. And so there were um there were some businesses that it was going to be very impactful to and very expensive for um just because of you know so you you know a good example is if you know your system isn't really set up to automatically turn off your sign. Um you know does that mean that you have to keep somebody there? Do you want to keep somebody? I mean it was just those kinds of like just the mechanics of actually making it happen and you know as you go through the es and flows of economics ups and downs um as that was hitting at not a great economic time the confluence of those two things was just not fantastic when you had a really struggling business community and then you're telling them well I know you're really struggling and we're here to support you and you need to spend x thousands of dollars retrofitting your signs that just didn't go over well with the business community and there was a lot of pressure on the city council.

I just feel like all they have to do is like flip the switch off when they leave. Just like, you know, it's not that easy. Am I oversimplifying? You you you may be slightly depending on I think the types of signs and the types of I I don't know. Right. I I think the last time around it wasn't just a curfew on the cut off of the lighting time. It was the entire code being updated that you had to switch from an uplit sign to down lit signs. I mean, there were more like changes that were it wasn't just like what time do you turn off the lights, right? It was more complicated than that that version. a curfew would be

I mean we could make the recommendation to approve this with the recommendation that um the city come up with a a campaign to maybe educate the community on dark sky standards and um you know using the carrot versus the stick trying to incentivize people to Yeah, you guys could make any recommendation. The world is your oyster on this one. So, I mean, not really. It's it's recommended. Recommend they go back to candles. People still don't understand the whole candle thing. Like that's like an engineering phenomenon.

I I just want to point out that that folks have very strong feelings about their advertising signs. Oh, yeah. based on experience doing this for 25 years. You know, I you know, other folks think, well, you know, with the the advent of of the internet and how we all travel now and find things, science's not as important as it was 40 years ago. I believe that to be true, but um I don't think that business owners feel that way.

If there's like a is there exempt businesses from something like this, like say the ER, right? The it says emergency room. Yeah. Another question. So, if there's a curfew to turn them off um by 10 o'clock at night or when they close, an hour after they close, is there some of them, some of the towns actually had a list of when you could turn them back on again? Like, can you turn it back on at 4:00 in the morning or, you know, when it's still dark outside? for I saw one of the towns I think it was Moab that said you can turn your light back on when you open your business.

Yeah, I would say that's how we currently interpret it likely is that when you're open for business, you're allowed to have your That's not what it says. It just says you turn it off. They don't say when you can turn it back on again. It's like Nucla says it remains off until one hour before sunrise. Yeah. So, do we need to add language? Crossing.

Here we go. So, yeah, you're right. Moab, all all their businesses shall turn off limited signs one hour after business close and shall remain off until business opens. So, you could add that to five shall be turned off at 10 p.m. or 1 hour after close of business, whichever is later. Sign shall be turned on. You know, you could use the same language. So we have that line in there. We don't. We would need to add it as a recommendation. So you take that Oops. You know, language similar to that. One hour after business clos and shall remain off until business open.

Yeah. Because otherwise you could just turn it off and at 2 o'clock in the morning, you can just flip it all back on again. Nobody's going to turn them off anyway. I don't know. I don't think I can tell you they're all on at 5:30 in the morning. I don't know if I make her. They're all

Emmer. Can I ask a a structural question? Like at the structure of the code, would it make more sense to not duplicate our code in section in lighting district one and lighting districts two and three and just put it up in F with the general requirements. Yeah, I was thinking about that when I can't remember who brought it up about street lighting because we have a section in exterior lighting that specifically talks about street lighting and you know if you don't include it there it's not immediately clear. So I think yeah maybe it would be better to just do it as a general all lighting fixtures that that that encapsulates your street lighting. One, two, three. Uh actually I think that would probably be better. So same. So what he's talking about is instead of doing like okay you have this added here for this section of code and then this added here for this section of code just add it somewhere else. It's overarching and then it covers everything. More of a just being concise and not duplicative. And then for the around the 20 foot candles in the canopy, is there a reason not to go with the I recommendation or standard? That's a publicly rule m a public rule making body that that comes up these general standards and are generally the experts.

Honestly, I just I picked 20 because it was in the middle and thought it was a good spot to start for conversation. So yeah. Okay. Does adopting these um standards make us a dark sky community? Not I mean I know there's no certification or anything like that. No. So actually there is you apply to them. It's a whole process. You measured your sky quality. You do a lighting audit. You show them your code. And so it wouldn't automatically like designate us as such, but it could put us if the city wanted to pursue that in the future. these changes could put us on a better track to meeting some of that. So they they like to take money for that certification.

I'm kind of if we're achieving the same goal without paying correct that's important to us as a city, we could do it.

Any other questions? Any questions from He has not. Okay. All right. We take that we asked for questions from the not from the audience. No. Like anybody comments, comments? Okay. Um do we have a motion? officially open it up for public comment since it is a code amendment. Yeah.

Do we have any public comments? No one online. Okay. I actually have a question. Carl, could you just maybe clarify? So staff, we have the three like really specific, you know, code language here. If planning and zoning commission wants to make a different recommendation or add something, does that need to be included in their motion? How does that work?

Yeah, if you're going to make additional changes, um I know that's a little hard to do um kind of on the fly, but it sounds like there may be some interest in and cut off and start time recommendations, something like that. I think it's relatively easy to do. Uh if it's more complicated, we may want to continue the item and bring it back to draft that language if there's something um beyond, you know, kind of simple recommendations to to make changes to the code. I can remember all the edits we had. No, I got to find the button. Can you show me motion? I

see you have a motion. Put the motion there. I move to recommend approval of planning file CDA-00000027-2026 to city council incorporating the staff's findings with the addition of uh creating a curfew of 10 p.m. or an hour after closing to be um I gotta look at the language of the other cities, but to be for like a 15-year grace period to figure out how you're going to do it and h add another uh addition about when to turn the lights back on when the business opens. And then the third addition is to request that the city have a campaign of education for um citizens and businesses about the night sky initiative.

You turned it so I can't finish. Which one did you want? I I think most incorporating the additional staff um criteria because it meets the approval criteria. Because it meets the approval criteria and we don't need to say anything about condensing that text. You already got that. Yeah. Yeah. We're okay. Okay. Second.

I'd second. and any discussion. I just really feel our businesses can figure out how to turn it off. I don't think having all this trying to get the businesses to do cool lights and this lights and that lights, I could see that could cost a lot of money and be frustrating, but I think with education and support from their citizens, businesses can learn how to turn their lights off at night. And I don't I do think it's just a light switch, you know, like you're closing and dimmer

or a dimmer, you know, I do think but I do think giving um just like the other communities gave 15 years to figure it out will not make it so crushing to them. And are we a different community than we were back when this was originally adopted? Maybe we're a little more progressive and also balancing p you know safety along with these guidelines. I think this is not um this is just business lights. I think just in general lights,

just making sure we balance, you know, safety because like um Commissioner Corpin said, you know, just as far as like if you walk around at night, um those type of things. I think it's important regardless. My two cents is that 15 years is almost too long of a runway. um

it's going to turn into a last three years project if it's 15 years. Um Picking County had one year, City of Aspen had five years. Both those were adopted last year. I know Colon Springs doesn't have the resources necessarily of either of those organizations. I just think anything longer than three to five years is probably just kicking the can down the road 10 years. I don't think we'll see any changes in the first 10 years. Is that a proposed friendly amendment to the motion to an item for years before what's that? I mean, I'm happy to propose that as a friendly minute. I just don't know if my fellow commissioners Got it. concur. I mean, I feel like five years is reasonable.

I mean, I agree. You think five is too long? I I think five could be appropriate and would um encourage the city to start the messaging sooner rather than later. now that the now that the city would not start messaging immediately, but I I just think it would fall to the back burner of the 15-year Yep. runway. We're going to double down. All right. Now, are you offering it as a friendly amendment? I am. Yes.

Would you accept that? Did the second accept that? I would There we go. Let's do it. Five years. Okay. Are you ready to call a question? Yes. Uh, voting is starting for approval of planning file CDA 00027206.

Great. Yeah, that was great. Poltergeist glitching the sensitivity warning. Don't do it. Don't do it. Okay. Are we supposed to? We're making Trent's life easy. Yeah. You guys voted. No. Letting us. It's polterge. Guys,

I apologize. I don't think voting is going to work. It seems to be having an issue. Uhhuh. Not. Do we do a vote by hands? Yeah. Just do a All in favor raise your hand. I I and opposed. None. Thank you. Perfect. Thanks. Unanimous. It's great. Good work, guys. Okay. Be here. Moving on. two. Now it's fine.

Is it working now? Passed. Okay. Okay. Planning file CDA 2620 26 code amendment regarding section 70450 landscaping screening and fencing. And we've got Mr. Hardcastle presenting.

Good evening. Give me just a moment if you would. It's nice uh to be following him uh as this is a a set of proposed code changes. also uh Jim Hardcast, the long range principal planner, community development, and I'm here to present uh CDA 2626, uh a set of code changes to municipal code section 70450, landscaping, screening, and fencing. Let me see if I can't Better not mess with this. Going to try to blow it up a little bit for you. Uh as in the title, uh what we'll be talking about this evening is broken down into three sections, landscaping, screening, and fencing. And as um typical with items in front of you, your role is to produce a recommendation to city council this evening with an approval denial uh denial, excuse me, approval with conditions, or it could be tabled uh for your consideration at a later date. Here we go. Uh, all of this is in your staff report. Nothing new, but I I wanted to put it all here in case we needed to reflect back on it. Uh, three sets of um intent behind all of our changes. The first one are staff initiated based on clarifications, ease of use, errors. uh oftentimes we run across these whenever we're trying to work with an applicant uh looking at at policy and and wanting to clean this up. The second one is the Senate Bill 2405 uh basically and they named it at the

state level prohibit landscaping practices for water conservation. It addresses uh the impacts of uh climate change, prohibits uh non-functional turf, artificial turf, invasive species uh for new and and redevelopment projects, and it does not apply to existing projects and private residential lots. The idea there is that the impacts are are more difficult to impart on a small development than it is on a larger one. Not saying that if you're small, you get away with it. Uh but we also have other things like uh the turf buyback program and other encouragements to help people reduce their their water usage in the first place. And that might imply that that's all we're doing. But no, a lot of folks will never come to us for a building permit or anything that requires any of the changes we're talking about tonight. So I think with with this they wanted to start in such a fashion that makes it effective in in ways that are attainable at our level. The third reason for the changes this evening is uh a newly enacted uh Colorado wildfire resiliency code. Uh the fire department here at the city is is putting uh it in place in whole and and you'll you'll have heard about it. If not you will. uh it is connected to changes and requirements within the building department. So the fire department will be working for the building but fire department reached out to us and asked us to work with our landscaping section uh and screening to make sure that we're helping to meet the ends for this statewide new code. It's not a revamped code at all, but it it it lends itself to supporting life and property uh uh regulations, mitigating the risk of wildfire spreading to and from

structures. Uh adopting a critical response to increasing wildfire risk was the main tenant behind what it is that that they're doing. And I'm sure you can recall a couple of these wildfires, especially in the middle of the winter on the front range a couple years ago, which uh was a main driving factor here. And it's intended to help communities such as our own to maintain insurability of homes. I'm going to go through these very fast. They're in your staff report, but basically uh the first group here was uh primarily a way for staff to clean up and clarify the things that are required for three different exemption sections. Um they basically reflect and and say with your types of development which are not largecale uh then if you are single and two family less than 5,000 square ft and less than 25% of a gross floor area those four sections should apply to to you only in C three apply and not the water efficiency landscape standards. I'm only going this deep to let you know what it is that I we're talking about. These are not new. The ones in red are new that we're applying those to the sections down below, but they're not new uh to the code itself. Please stop me at any time if you'd like to. Uh but if not, we can talk about it at the end. Uh the second set uh talks about uh artificial uh uh turf and how it might be used and we've applied the same type of rationale, the nexus to the idea of using artificial turf. They have asked they have called for it in SB5 to be eliminated, but they are still supporting it to a degree for functional uses where needed. There's there's a plus and minus there. It reduces water, but it possibly introduces microplastics and they're looking at at everybody is looking at these more closely. Uh but

this is a way to do something that is more impacting at this time and that's reducing water. Excuse me. And the second one is uh the clear identification to applicants uh of the items that should not be selected and should not be selected uh from certain guides. Uh, one of them is the city's uh, parks and recreation department landscaping species guide and the other one is the county's noxious uh, weed list and and that is also a a determinant uh, and moving factor from uh, SB5. This third one comes uh is found in our water efficiency landscape standards. The we have broken it out into several um, hierarchical sections. That's mainly for better readability. Uh the larger one in section three is directly related to the wildfire resiliency code as as cited there and as it's amended over time we we will be able to accommodate for that we won't have to reapply anything new that they come up with. Uh lots of edits here and specifically pointing out drought tolerant as the the verbiage wasn't used initially the first time. uh it was vague on water efficient plant list which we don't actually have. The third one is all brand new from the Colorado wildfire resiliency code. Uh it's basically separating plants, putting no plants uh up against uh structures 5t away uh and limiting and ma managing these uh living items as they grow and as they encroach on each other. maintaining that there is a distance back so uh as to lessen wildfire transmission. Uh this was just a clarity to uh a

document that we have on our city website the streetscape manual. uh it is to it I'm in three and a half years I we haven't really that I've been here we haven't really uh looked at it or needed it for any types of projects in the the downtown core and it mainly has to do with amenities of seating trash lighting uh anything that might have to do with something that you would you would be wanting to put on your uh development but and and as the the public access and use it, we have a standard within that manual and that's what we're we're looking to uh strengthen the applicants understanding of. Uh this was just a clarification that's kind of crept up in the last couple years with commercial businesses maintaining uh that if landscaping is to be put up against a refuge container enclosure uh it it should have that standard of permanency opaque or year round screening at a mature height maintaining that they don't just put in 12-in plants to start off with. Uh this is another uh clarification that we've looked at in the the last couple of years where uh we haven't we've we've missed out on compliance a couple times because uh uh applicants and installers hadn't necessarily understood the difference between a a roof, a side, and a ground uh mounted equipment, mechanical and utility equipment. So here we've just pointed out the difference in added uh exterior to roof and mechanical and utility. Just uh simply stating that and this last one uh is is also in line with the the state's wildfire resiliency code maintaining that 8 ft within 8t of a structure there will be no non there

will be non-combustible ignition resistant materials. Uh this is clarifying that any vegetation is to be uh installed in the recession and and not along the entire face of the wall. Spelling error. Uh the criteria of uh code amendments as we've discussed earlier this evening are a list of five. I have these broken down with anything you wanted to talk about here, but simply there is uh compliance and support for the comprehensive plan and and the ECAP. Uh the ECAP is more of a document that helps guide the city in what we do internally with energy consumption and savings, but this does support that. Uh the second one indicates that it is uh not in conflict with any other provisions than the municipal code and that is in indeed true. Uh there are uh seven items here which are the purpose and clearly stated from the landscaping fencing and retaining wall code section 70 uh 5040 and those are all met. Uh it it is th this set of amendments this evening are uh in an effort are brought to you in an effort to support uh needed change within not only our code but within uh the the climate of uh building and adaptability and uh it is necessary to support those changes and it is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code and uh the EAP and the comp plan. Uh it was publicly noted. This uh was brought to you by the the city. No other outside

applicant. Uh public notice was made on the 13th and the 20th. No public comment has been received to date. As I mentioned, your choices this evening are approval. Approval with conditions, denial, or continuing the hearing. Uh staff does recommend uh for approval of this uh set of changes found within uh with your authority to 70 6040 uh within 70 40 50 sorry threw that all together. Therefore we recommend approval as outlined in the suggested uh motion as follows. Uh there are your five suggested findings again and then if you find differently we have alternative motions for you with that happy to take any questions.

Yeah, I got a question is on page four. Yep. On page four of the staff report. Yeah. Location of required plant material. Subsection two, the pruning of trees. Would that be this one? Yes. Yep. Am I reading that where it's the cities are going to start requiring people to maintain their trees? I I think it would be. And Whoa. Or stop.

No. No. I I believe it's it it is a recommendation from the state in response to a need to help prevent wildfire. We we won't be policing it, but it is a requirement. I I think it leads to helping solve problems where you find encroachment uh within a property or from one property to another where uh an a land owner, a business, a residential use might find more support and help within the code in encouraging not only in cleaning up their own property, especially if you have a renter, but if you're trying to encourage a neighbor to reduce some of that growth.

Yeah. No, I just if someone's ever tried hiring or costing a tree company, it's impossible. It's ridiculously expensive. But

venture for, you know, the neighborhood I live in there, all the trees are old and everybody's trees are overgrowing each other's neighbors. And I had a neighbor without permission, but this the the tree trimming guys came and talked to me, asked if they could trim the tree. There was our Chinese elm overgrowing their property and it's been there. The guys planted it when they built the house. Um, but at the time I was like, I don't have any money. I I couldn't I didn't have four or $5,000 to come up with to have the tree trimmed. So the neighbor, this second homeowner, he paid for it, did it, but I that seems kind of expensive to put on homeowners. I mean, there a lot of old trees in the town. They're overgrowing everything. So, is it my understanding that these these don't go into effect when you like request a permit or have new construction that or or it's not something that is just like we have conforming non-conforming use when we are not applying for those things. So, we're not required to conform with that. Is that right? So, the the applicability of of the code has a lot to do with building permits, uh, development permits, things that, uh, would encourage us to, you know, look at those.

Yeah. And just just to clarify, I I don't think any of these regulations are intended to um apply to one existing private residences or um, you know, any existing commercial businesses. and the intent of that specific regulation there. Um, I could see how you it might be interpreted to show that you maintain that, but when we're looking at a landscaping plan, it would be if you have x number of required trees on your property that we can understand that tree at maturity is going to have, let's just say a 30 foot drip line. So, we're not going to plant multiple trees next to each other within 30 feet or whatever that maturity is so that we can evaluate that in a landscaping plan.

Okay. So, no, it doesn't. It It definitely doesn't. I mean, because if your neighbor calls you the code department and says, "Patrick's tree is leaning over my uh fence. He needs to trim it." Is that going to make except in those instances of the applicability section that we looked at previously and we could pull that back up. So if it was a major addition um on a commercial residence um where were the other ones there? That's that's the main one I see the applicability. Where' it go? Sorry.

So these would be the only I think it was back the last one. Yep. These would be the instances where we're applying this. So the for single and two family res residential land uses it would only be streetcape requirements that we'd be looking at there fence standards as well as retaining wall standards that apply to that less than 5,000 square feet again looking at the same sections. So the specific section that we talked about with the pruning of the trees, I don't think is in those applicability sections. Does the city have responsibility for any of this trees along the street? Is it all private property?

Most of those even within private property um are are maintained by the property owners. Kind of like your sidewalk when it snows. The city doesn't hire tree trimmers once summer to come through and clean up trees. We do have to replace some dangerous disease or damage trees and trim those especially if they're, you know, have implications for utilities in that area street.

Yeah. Situation existing right now is along Center Drive. Um I don't know if it is cottonwoods or what the species is there, but the city's actually going in with our water line replacement project, removing those trees that are negatively impacting the sidewalk in that area. and replacing them with more suitable appropriate species. So, in some instances we do, you know, that's not necessarily the responsibility of the property owners that didn't plant those trees. We're trying to protect our own infrastructure by removing them, replacing them. But I mean, the power line, they do the same. They have the right away to go down and clear stuff for the power lines.

Okay. I feel like I've also seen resources that Glenwood Springs has for homeowners who can apply for like help with that stuff if you meet certain criteria. We we run different programs at different times. also with mitigation. Um, you know, biggest part of some of the the tree pruning and spacing, um, there's a great benefit of having the fire department to come out and to tell you some of the the areas of your property that are most susceptible to to fire approaching from, you know, different areas andor any hardening of your structure that they may recommend.

Yeah, I was actually going to say that we had Mina from the fire department come out and look at our house and we applied for some. They have like some grants that match your input to help lessen the cost for you.

There questions. Any public comment? Seeing none online, we will bring it back to the commission for a vote. Is anyone a motion? Yep. Motion,

but you have to change it back to the motion slide. I move to recommend approval of planning file CDA 00000026-2026 to city council incorporating staff's findings because the application meets the approval criteria for code amendment with the amendment. I'm al I would also recommend striking from table 40.6 street trees other standards uh D trees shall be spaced 30 ft apart on center unless alternative spacing is approved by the director.

Wait, can we pull that up? I don't know what we're talking about here.

Sorry. Where are we at? I was worried it's too much of a discussion item to talk about earlier. It's okay if we weren't supposed to talk about it. Supposed to ask questions. Uh table 40.6. Uh street trees. The street tree section of that table. Bring up the code. While he's doing that, it may be worthwhile if somebody is inclined to second at least for discussion purposes to just get the get the dialogue going. I'll second the motion.

All right. I my my explanation I know it came out of the blue. Uh the resiliency code requires 10 feet between mature crowns. Many of the street trees from the city's street trees list have crown diameters of 40 feet or more. So if we're recommending 30 feet, it's in conflict with the CWRC requirement of 10 feet between mature grounds. Very smarty pants. It makes things make sense. Well done.

Well, and I'm surprised that our the consultant that we worked with on that didn't find that one. Uh well, we we didn't hire them, but we did have an evaluation of our code against Senate Bill 5 to to provide recommendations. But I I mean, that's absolutely true. If you're 35 foot offc center and your maturity mature crown is 40 ft, it's an issue. This blue trend mine, it's actually it bleeds over to the next. It's D in the other standards category. Tree shall be spaced 30 ft apart on center right there. Right. Yeah.

I mean, I guess they could always come to you, Trent, and you can always approve it. It feels silly to have a requirement that basically can't be met.

Um, yeah. And I wonder if maybe the reason that wasn't flagged is because, you know, they're they're mostly concerned with with conifers, right, as opposed to deciduous trees. Uh but that might be something I want to seek some clarification on. And most of our street tree species are are are uh address trees. So, do we amend the re the motion to state that you look into it or do we want Right. It's your motion. I'll recommend staff analyze it and bring

There you go. Perfect. And does the second Are you good with that? Yes, of course. Sorry. And had you stated directly stated a purpose with that for us to look into? Yes. That you're okay. You don't have any draft language before council reviews. We're ready to vote. Oh, have discussion. I mean, I think it was like we're done. Yeah. Nobody Nobody We don't like buyers.

Be careful. Sorry. Oh my voting thing. I'm a Yes. Yes.

You get a vote. My screen's just not working. Yes. Okay. Uh, the motion passes. All right. Um, do we have any commissioner comments?

No, I'm good. No, I do.

Go for it. Um, I was wondering for shortterm rentals, is there anybody in the city that like randomly audits who post short-term rentals on one of like the two major websites? Because I know that there's like three or four per block downtown online. It's on some blocks. Um, so it feels like there's a rule, but nobody really enforces it. We most certainly do. We're actually recently going through one of those audits um and we'll um send out a notice of violation to anyone that we find that is not complying with the standards. Um but that's that's usually our course of action is to evaluate those two major platforms.

And isn't it correct that if you have some that are are of question, please send those to us. would be happy with it. One of them like doesn't look like it's right next door because they on the map it looks further away, but on the picture it's like literally two houses away from another short-term rental. Isn't it correct that if it was a short-term rental before the buffer zones were put into place, it could still exist as one that's right next door to another one? That's correct. that legal non-conforming kind of conversation we had earlier would apply to those that were existing before some of our more strict regulations. So that would be the Is there a list of these of the permit short-term rental?

Yep. I think that is actually on our website um on our GIS one of our landing pages for GIS. You can see which ones um are permitted. who collects the like taxes from them when they have to um for lodging taxes. How do you make sure that they're enforcing paying the taxes? Each one of those business um operators um has a business license and a tax collection license. Um and so they they remit taxes to our finance department. But does anybody check to see if they're remitting the appropriate amount of taxes?

Yeah. Uh well, you know, I mean, obviously some of that is remitted from the actual platform agencies themselves. So, it's it's pretty straightforward in those situations. And then additionally, the uh finance department does regular audits across all of the various funds that they collect taxes for. So, that's kind of an ongoing thing. It doesn't mean that every person gets audited every year. Yeah. But it does mean much like you know anything else they try to rotate through um randomly select as well as complaint driven. Uh and I was going to mention during my comments you may be hearing an appeal from a property owner on one of those in the coming months. So

based on a decision that we made in regards to tax remittance. Nice. Did I did not know that. I just want to say thanks to staff and um that landscaping guide. I did come across it when preparing for this meeting and it's an amazing resource. Um it' be great if they could add the ignition resistant category to the drought tolerant street trees. Um what is that? That's a requirement in this wildfire resistance thing. What is ignition resistant? It's a category of planting determined by the Colorado State Forest Service. It's like an aloe

basically kind of identifies those that that are high in in oils like evergreens as Oh, I see. Like they won't ignite because they are succulents have a low typically things that are allowed in those first five feet. So if the city has that source already, if they can add that layer to it, I think that would be Yeah. helpful because not everybody just wants nothing or Yeah. Yaka I think John soon and then we're not gonna they can't because he's got a he's got picking county housing. He'll never leave they'll never

um I just wanted to say that I have seen um just like on the swap and then in town people utilizing that turf um buyback program and that's really encouraging to see. Um yeah. That's all I have. Director comments.

Uh, I just wanted to publicly acknowledge Gregory Cowan and his service on this board and and to all of you, you know, thanks for for doing what you do. It's not always an easy job. Sometimes it's fun. We get to discuss kind of future policy and code like we did tonight. And, you know, you you are beneficial. I think maybe sometimes you feel like you're put into a box and you have to make decisions based on the code and maybe don't get to express your feelings about it. But but when we are looking at code revisions is when we do get to kind of, you know, talk about the policy and where we want to go and and tonight I think you had some great ideas and and we're grateful for that. Then also, you know, maybe where staff's a little more reluctant to to be a little um more advanced or or or progressive in some of our regulations, you might be the kind of the juice that we need to move that stuff along. So, thank you very much. But, uh yeah, future um applications upcoming potentially um concerns about an SUP in town, special use permit, as well as that appeal that we mentioned. And then probably moving forward in May, maybe some additional um code considerations. Um, you know, the benefit of us not having a ton of of development permits at the moment means that we do get to do some planning and look at the code and maybe make some of those changes that we have talked about or anticipating for future, you know, improvements in the city. So, thank you.

Is is the city um contemplating water restrictions at all this summer? Uh, the city continuously operates under a watering schedule. Um and we will continue to do that for um for this coming summer. Um there may need be a need for um some stricter um compliance or or enforcement um in this summer, but we have a pretty good measure of of a similar year and that was 2018. We're a little bit below those levels. Uh but you know the city the city is anticipating being able to provide the the water needs of the city this coming summer even in a a tough drought year.

Okay. Meeting is adjourned.