Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to slide over you guys. Okay, I am going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. It's December 8th. It is 4:02. Um, I'll do a roll call of planning commission members. Uh, Joey Edwards here, Steve Stevens, uh, Jason Rufo here, David here,

and Ryan Hill. Okay. And I don't think we have the commissioners joining us this evening, but I'll just in case they're online. Uh, Commissioner Tharp, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Bulock. Okay. Uh, any changes to the current agenda? Okay. Do we have any updates? Um I think just um tomorrow evening's opponent and elected and um discussion um on the one community project starting at 6:00 tomorrow evening at CMC CMC hoping to see you all there. So I think that's the only update that I

and and that the winter um strategy summit was really a success for you that attended it. I think that um we were really happy with the amount of community members that we had turn out for that. Um we had some great uh reporting out from our our action teams and all of our different topical areas. Um and so um excited about that. Um, but overall I think it was a real success and so thank you if you attended and uh we were really excited to see the on a blustery winter night with so many things competing in our community and happening last week. We were excited to have a good um community turnout.

Okay. Okay. I'll move us down into the new business. We have file 25-31 which is the group camp code amendment um with the continuation. Um I don't know if you want to give a background on that to that. Um no I think um we aren't continuing to a date certain so we'll have to renotice when that time comes but we're going to start with the the conversation tonight and go from there. Yeah. So, just uh we're going to do a group camp code um conversation prior to them proposing an amendment to us this evening. Um do we need to make a motion to continue?

If we don't have a date certain, we can't really I think we're just providing you notice that we those files are going to be continued and that we will renotice them. They'll all have to be renoticed. Okay. So, file 25-9 is the Alpenflow group camp and special event facility CP also being continued. Um, and we don't have a date certain on that either. That's correct. So, it'll be renoticed once it comes out. That's right.

Okay. And just because I do think that we have a big group of people here for one or both of these um agenda items, I know that we have our agendas online for people, but where is a place that maybe people can see that some of these change to continuations easily? like what's a good place to direct people who are trying to come to some of these and then find out they're continued?

Well, I think tonight there um so generally it would this continuation was determined last week. Um and it really wasn't finalized until Friday. So when the when the agenda was posted, um typically we do keep record of anybody that we're receiving notice from so we could possibly do a better job of reaching out to anybody that has indicated um that they're attending and you know if we did receive uh letters on Friday, I apologize that we didn't let you know sooner. Um but I think this in this particular case sometimes continuations aren't aren't really um done with a lot of uh time to be able to notify but we can certainly work on that. So it is posted on our website as of Friday. Okay.

Um uh and and generally always our agendas are on Friday before our normal regular meetings on Mondays. Um, so that's a great place to check the agenda to see if there's an update um, just for information purposes. And then we can also, um, I know we had another file that had quite a few continuations not long ago. And we were reaching out. We had a a long list of people, um, that were really watching and wanting to participate in those hearings. So, we were doing a lot of communication with them directly. Um, and so we can work on that a little bit better in the future, too. until that point. I Your names again. You said you sent me something, right? Jana. Jana. Okay. Lindsay. I'm sorry.

It's okay. Did I say Leslie? It's okay. Yeah. So, you you're particularly interested in not massive. You said no. No. They would have been interested. Correct. Okay. All right. So now I have a email list of two. So that'll be Yeah, we we we've got a little tight-knit community thing going on. We don't talk we don't talk all the time, but

we everybody's kind of got each other's number of who knows who over on Half Moon Road and and it's it's there's not a lot of going on out there. And so I feel like you kind of tell a few of us and we start texting that, you know, the the other neighbors that are out there. Yeah. Um, we're all a few miles apart, but we're we're kind of isolated out there. So, if you could send a smoke signal to a couple of us, I think we can

we can maybe try and put the put the word out. You know, we're always waving at each other through the windshield. And I'm always the guy that dropped his blade on the I live at the very back. And so when I leave in the morning, I'm like I sometimes I plow through the snow drifts on my way to town and plow snow at 3:00 a.m. So, we all kind of see each other. We know we're out there. So, I feel like Mark and I kind of have some people's contacts and Okay. I mean, just on that particular matter, as far as the website, we I have looked on there to try and figure out when some of this stuff was going on when when I got my letter from Sarah and I asked her about it and she said, "Go to the county website. It's on there." But it was a little difficult for me to find, but that was when the first meeting was scheduled. So

yeah, the agendas should be I I would just like if you're planning to come to a meeting, just check the agenda a day or two beforehand and just make sure it doesn't show continued and if so, you can call staff and find out what the deal is with it. Okay. I would also mention that there is another land use application that's pending um kind of in an induced scenario that's the Mount Massive um cup. um that applicant has also um um asked for uh some additional time to submit some more information for their application. So I think that that's been noticed for December 22nd. However, it'll be continued.

It'll be um they want some additional time to review some information that's come forward. So um that one won't won't be happening, but that on the 22nd, but that's one that's in your neighborhood. Yeah, we've heard about that one from the grape vine being able to come through the grapevine as as well. I just wanted to because it did show newspaper. So, let you know that that one is going to need some additional time as well. Okay. The the cs are not on the website. Correct.

They are on our website. They are. We did have to meet our accessibility requirements from there was a statewide change and so we just were approved to get all our um particularly our land use applications. We um just uh received approval to get those back online and so if you go there even this evening you should be able to find all of the information on those applications. They're there. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. I'm going to move us into file 25-25 which is 3330 Shiloh backcountry site plan review. Um and I will start with opening statement here. Um, thank you guys for trying to come. Uh, Lake County Planning Commission will now conduct a public hearing. This statement I'm reading shall be incorporated into and made part of the record on these proceedings. The planning commission has jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing on a backcountry site plan review under section 5.2.27.1 of the Lake County Land Development Code. The purpose of this hearing is to consider whether the proposed site plan should be approved. In considering that matter, the commission will address the approval criteria set forth in section 5.2.27. 27.1D of the Lake County Land Development Code. The pro procedure to be followed in this hearing will be members of the commission will disclose if they have any exparte communication. Two, county staff will make initial presentation. Three, the applicant may then make their presentation. Four, after that, any other persons either supporting or opposing the application may present their evidence. Um, five, supporting and opposing witnesses may be questioned by the commission. Once questioning is concluded, no further questioning is permitted unless granted by the chair. Six, the applicant may then re present any rebuttal evidence. The parties and witnesses are asked not to submit redundant, irrelevant, or cumulative evidence. If someone has already made the point that you wish to make, please simply say so. The chair will also require that all comments be made to the planning commission and that there be no dialogue between the applicant and the members of the audience. At the conclusion of the evidentary portion of the hearing, the chair will entertain a motion to close the evidentary portion of the hearing and the commission will discuss and weigh the evidence. Then there will be a motion to close the discussion phase of the joint public hearing. The chair of the planning commission will entertain a motion on the application. The motion may take the form of one of the following recommendations. One, approve the application with no conditions. Two, approve the application with the recommended conditions. Three, approve the application with newly identified conditions. Or four, deny the application. The planning director shall

make record of any substantial discussion on the motion and include that in the record with the decision of the commission. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of the commission or to the form or substance of these proceedings? Hearing none, I will now ask each planning commission member if you've had any exparte communications to disclose on this file and if so to please disclose them now. Joey Edwards, none. Jason Maripo, none. Um, David, none. And Heather Lind, none. We don't have any new ones on there, I don't think. Um, okay. I'll turn it over to staff for initial presentation.

All right. Thank you. So I have a presentation and I know the applicant Jason Wast is also online.

Oh no that's commercial project that all right. So this is um a project that is under our back country zoning. So that requires a site plan and the planning commission you're the final authority on those. just it's been a little while since we've done this. So, I wanted to kind of revisit that. So, you can go forward. 3330 Shiloh and it is located on East Tennessee Pass Road and US um 102. So the mining claim, you can see a little arrow is uh 11.3 acres and it is um they're proposing a 600 square ft cabin. So it really is very much what we have imagined for and and allow in our zone. So you can go to the next page. So you can see the road that comes up and then there's this portion that goes through a mining claim a little bit to the south and then at least on this image and then crosses into the the Shiloh property. So the um that's US Forest Service Road 102. Yeah. So they are proposing um a a location that really has minimal earthwork or tree removal as part of the uh dirt work that needs to be done. We have no records uh of any geologic mining or environmental hazards as part

of this. The lower image is from our the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and you can see sort of the designation it gives us. So it's disturbed um and lower scoring in terms of habitat. So this isn't an area that is really sensitive in terms of the the wildlife impacts. I have um I did receive a letter And you can go to the next page because this page also sort of demonstrates that in the green area is the elk production area and this site appears to be outside of that. And um but I I did receive late in the process an email from CBW that confirmed they they they want everyone to be aware that the elk don't really just stay within the polygons that automatically demonstrate.

Here's my boundary.

So you know they they are in this area. I'm sure it's part of the value of this area and so just to be sensitive to that and so we have added a condition of approval that's probably going to be pretty typical in our back country of just really being good stewards of this area. So um while it's not directly a site that um perhaps production they use the word production for cving um occurs it's it's an area that's really important and really important to the wildlife. So um the v there was a variance approved in November for an incinerating toilet and uh water will be hauled to the cabin so there's no running water. So those are really we're really looking at offgrid cabins about this size in these locations that have really minimal footprint. So this application really meets that those criteria can go to the next page. So this is the building design that they're looking at. Um the finishes are in the image below. So these are both um sensitive to the colors and the materials that are in this area, but also they are more wild or they're more um wildfire proof in terms of the their composition. So there is a picture in your staff report of the exterior lighting that has the full meets the full cutout requirements. So we believe the cabin really meets the size and design that we're looking for in this location. So you can go to the next slide. So the conditions of approval for this um that that site plan I showed you where we have the two mining claims and we got 45 ft. Um in between the two is

US Forest Service land. So as you read in the staff report, they have to get a private road, they call it a private road special use permit from the US Forest Service. it's been in process for a while. They don't they you know they're waiting and um it's a condition of getting their structural permit. Um the importance of once they've done any site disturbance and they built the cabin to implement a noxious weed management plan so that the vegetation gets restored appropriately for this location. and there's quite a bit written in staff report just about what some of the recommendations are from CPW in terms of best practices. So the that's the third condition. The fourth and fifth, there's six conditions, but have to do with uh Lake Leadville Lake County Fire Rescue and our office of emergency management. And they have some recommendations for just really how to live um even though they're living there part-time, but but safely uh in this environment. So, those are important. And then anything else that gets stated tonight, that's important in the approval. So, those are the six conditions of approval. We are recommending this um we're recommending approval for this based upon these conditions and the findings in the staff report. So I can answer any questions and again Jason one gas is available um as well.

Well let's uh see if Jason has anything additional he would like to add um andor present and then we can questions planning commission. Thank thank you very much. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Well, thank you very much for uh you know, hearing this application today. I really appreciate that. I'm here with my wife, Megan Gil, my co-licant for this project. So, she's much better at public speaking than I am. So, I'm going to send that over to her for any additional comments.

Yeah, I don't know that we have anything specific to add, but uh happy to answer any questions. Um this is just essentially a a very small part-time use cabin for our family's use. Um and so yeah, happy to clarify anything that would be helpful, but we've very much tried to really limit the disturbance on the site um with the location of the cabin itself as well as with the driveway um to to limit tree removal to just what's necessary for uh fire mitigation purposes and to get the structure in. But otherwise, we hope to have uh very very limited disturbance in the area.

Great. Thank you. Um, planning commissioner, anybody have any questions? You know, I always question why I'm looking at you. Uh, the only thing I couldn't see in the plans was the finished height from the grade. I see it from the finished floor on the main level, 20 ft. But the grade is different from the front to the back. I was just curious if you have that number. My understanding is that the structure was the 20 foot maximum, not from finished grade for the backount use 600 foot um structure.

Okay. Yeah, it just shows 20 ft from the finished floor, which I don't know if that's outside of the the ground. I mean, finished floor is above the joist. So, you have the height of the joist up to the top of the structure. I don't know if that's an issue or not. Um, but I don't see it depicted from the from, you know, the top of the foundation or how you know if these are on everything's on posts or whatnot.

Yeah, we can definitely put that in there. We um I'm looking at it now to see what you're looking at. Yeah. Yeah. So that finish grade is from the south side of the cabin which is uh the finish grade is at floor level or at ground level. It'll be on the south side. It will be flush with the with earth so that you just walk onto it from the south side. Okay. So from the other side then you have a I don't know what your grade grading is there. just curious.

Yeah, in in the report it does talk about the the grading being minimized um for structural concerns by grading the south side to make it less of a slope um on for the overall building. So, it won't be too high. Um I I actually think it's going to be hopefully under five feet from beginning to end, north to south. So from grade level to the top of the structure, we're looking at 25 ft versus really 20 feet. Okay. That's the only question I

um any I mean usually it would be depicted on here, but just to verify there's not any fencing or anything like that that you guys are doing. No. Oh, and that was in that the site plan submitt that there will be no um permanent fencing of any kind, only silk fencing during construction for erosion control. Okay. Um and then I think that we ended up writing it into the back country code anyway as far as like bare animal wildlife management safety or trash

trash ma mainly is what I'm concerned with. But um so I think that's already part of it. Um, those were the only two things that came to mind for me with the extra just being a little extra cautious with the CPW stuff. But anybody else have any questions? Uh, assuming this that electricity will be solar. Is that correct? Or generator? So, for now, we've decided that we would start with no um no power and then only use power. Maybe in the future we can we can put in power. We do have the capability to put in solar. Um that that can be possible.

Okay. So there's no plan for solar currently, but should solar be used, do you have plans for it, whether it would be building mounted, in other words, roof mounted, or were you considering a separate freestanding array? So we we thought about that a lot and what we've designed is a roof that goes directly east and west. The solar access on the site is medium, I would say. Um but uh the roof giving us east and west will let us capitalize on the east and west sun because the mountain is generally to the south. So it gives us kind of a good access point. Um and it there there definitely is the capability for solar um access for year round um energy production.

But we definitely prioritize putting it on the building before putting it on lake outpost um if if we decide to go that direction. Thank you for that clarification. This is my only question. Good for me. Um, all right. Do we have any public comment for this application? Then I will take a motion to close the public hearing on this application. I move to close the public portion of this hearing. Edmond seconds. All in favor? Bye. All right.

Okay. Any discussion before a motion or does anybody have a motion like any concerns? Anybody? Uh I just want to make sure that it's not an issue setting any kind of precedence so far as the height if there is I don't know if it needs to be clarified in that back country code so far as the finished height of the

foundation itself will be reviewed before they get their structure license and so um that's part of the structure license review. I am a little concerned that I do believe the code does specify that it needs to be not more than 20 feet above the finish grade. Um so we'll that that is something that we're earmarking to talk to them about as part of the um structure license, but that's an administrative review. So today it's just focused really on a site plan review. Um but I'm glad that you brought that up um Jason so that we can take a look at that or Melissa can take a deeper dive into that with the applicants. Um and and just verify because I do know that um I think we're relying on the code's definition of height which is the average construction

not from the the median. So the the middle of the top of the front or the back. So it would be different than the the game currently understands. Okay. So but that would be part of the structural license you know just like with the building permit. Right. Right. Um so but did take note of that and and they did provide us an image that shows a maximum height of swim. So we'll make sure that that that is based upon the average finish. Very good.

Any other questions or comments? That's a that was a good point. That was a congratulation. Yeah. I just would hate for to move forward and then someone else says something and it's not science and then something changes and that gets really expensive. So yeah. Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion?

Edwards moves that the planning commission conditionally approved file number 25-25 3330 Shiloh backcountry site plan review pursuant to the standards of section 5.2.27.1 27.1 site plan review and further find that the approval criteria pursuant to the Lake County Land Development Code section 5.2.27.1D have been met as evidenced in the staff report dating December 8th, 2025 for file number 25-25. This conditioned as follows. Number one, a private road special use permit from the US Forest Service is required prior to issuance of the backount structure license. Number two, applicant shall reveate the disturbed soils developing a noxious weed plan with the assistance of the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife and the Lake County Conservation District. Number three, the applicant shall consider best practices for complying with the CPW recommendations uh in order to protect important habitat surrounding the property. Number four, applicant shall comply with all recommendations and requirements of the Lead the Lake County Fire Rescue. Number five, applicant shall comply with all recommendations and requirements of the Lake County Office of Emergency Management, including reflective signage, address signage, a reliable communication method, ongoing annual maintenance of defensible space, and access routes to ensure long-term safety. Number six, all statements and representations made by the applicant through the application and hearing shall be binding and considered as conditions of approval. And further finding that number one as conditioned the proposed site plan in its substantial conform conformance with the expressed purposes intents goals and policies of the Lake County comprehensive plan in any ancillary county acknowledged or adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection affordable housing infrastructure management or any area specific community plans. Number two as conditioned the proposed site plan conforms to the requirements and provisions of this code. Number three,

as conditioned, the proposed site plan adequately addresses the supplemental requirement items. Number four, as conditioned, the proposed site plan is consistent with and in harmony with neighboring land uses and future intended land uses in that area. And number five, as conditioned, any potential man-made natural hazards have or will be adequately mitigated. Second. I'll second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Okay. All in favor? I I All right, we're going to move into our study session right on time. Thanks very much. Thank you.

Um we have group camp code amendment conversation um led by staff. Thank you.

Okay. Um, so really thought this was an ideal time to take um a break and really dive in to the potential of this KOD movement, what it means, what it's about um and really recognize that um commercial lodging as a whole is something um that there is an increase in interest on and that we really probably going to be coming forward with more recommendations. Um, so this is probably just our first um, lean in on the topic. Um, and we do anticipate that we're going to need to have a lot more conversations about this um, and potentially some action. So go ahead and start. Um, the this is our table of uses that I think most of you are familiar with. And at the top are the zone districts. to the different zone districts and um just took out the exer um from the code about our commercial lodging um which is held under recreation and entertainment outdoor um appropriately as you will see all of our um lodging is um only allowed conditionally. Um we don't have um anything up there that is used by right. Um it's either pro prohibited within the zone districts or it is subject to a conditional review. This evening we're really going to zone in on uh group camps and vacation lodges. I wanted to show you the table because I wanted to show how they're grouped together with the same you specific standards. So at the very last column in the table the 5.2.6 that's the use specific standards. Those are the standards that we review specifically the use to. And so tonight we're going to talk about um of course the roof camps and vacation lodges and I use specific standards 5.2.6 and then um private resorts and guest

ranches which is fourth down on the list and it's subject to 5.2.28 standards. Also 2.15.15

oh 15 I'm so sorry. um 0.15. Thank you, Jason. And um probably good time to also mention that as we're looking at this, what are the zone districts that uh group camps and vacation lodges are allowed in? Conditionally, they're a forestry, uh recreational, resort, and backcountry. Also, probably um at this point most of you are familiar enough with our zone districts to know right now we don't have any um lands in Lake County that are held under the resort um district designation. So, specifically we're going to really be talking about a forestry, recreational um zoning and backount. So, go ahead and go to the next slide. Um so let's talk about definitions and um so they're all generally have um some similarities but specifically group camps are more of those informal um types of shelters. They can be tents, cabins, huts or um a variation of of those type all temporary lodging meant to accommodate people on vacations. And they give this example of extended visits for educational or athletic purposes, religious retreats or other purposes. A vacation lodge again held under the same use specific standards. It is has built um structures something that would be built to a IBC or an IRC code. Um, and they're a group of buildings under single management located nearby recreational opportunities or amenities and they contain rooms or efficiency units again temporary commercial lodging. Then we bump into a different category of private resort and guest ranch. And so private resorts bump up the use to um an IBC build, a hotel or a motel, a campus. um same kind of thing as a group camp

definition people vacating and um with the addition on a private resort that customarily these may um include the serving of meals and then when you look up guest camp in our code it says C private resort um so just wanted us to kind of understand what are the types of uses that we're talking about so next slide um then wanted to do a comparison so generally Um, the group camps and vacation lodges have the same maximum density up to five people per acre. You can entertain a group camp or vacation lodge on parcels that are a minimum of 5 acres or greater. They have a 50-ft setback and the maximum occupancy is 100 people. Private resorts and guest ranches, same density, but you have to have a minimum of 20 acres. the setback increases to 200 feet and they have a maximum occupancy of 500 people. Next slide. Um so let's talk about what are the common standards because verbatim some of these are absolutely identical between all those different uses. So, first, um, it it this

I'm just going to I'm going to clarify just one thing for you because, um, I think what we're saying is that the way our code reads now, they're all separated, they're all separate uses, but they all seem to have the same criteria. I just wanted to clarify that.

That's right. So when I say the use specific standards, these are the standards that when we take a use, we go through. Not only do they have to meet the approval criteria for conditional use permit, but there are additional criteria um that these uses have to meet. And so we're going through and looking at for all four of these types of uses, what are the common standards that we hold them all to? Um so the first one is that the use can't compromise the character of the underlying zone district by significantly more intense use of the land or the roads. Um the next is that the scene quality of the location has to be preserved. That um there won't be significantly more traffic between specifically the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8 8 a.m. than the use would normally have during its its operation. and that the use shall not create noise in excess of a weighted decibel of 70 for more than one continuous minute between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8 a.m. This is slightly more restrictive than state statutes on um noise mitigation. Uh so for commercial use that um decibel level is at 60 but it does um the state allows you to go up 10 to the 70 decel for no for up to 15 minutes between the hours of 7 and 7. So our code is a little more restrictive. It says only for no more than a minute. um but extends the time frame to allow it to not be as restrictive from 8:00 pm to 8 a.m. instead of the 7 to 7.

And is that at the property line?

Um yes. Yes, at the property line. And there's other things that get considered like the ambient um u uh sound around, you know, so what's a kind of already existing. Um a lot of these areas though are vacant. Um so and but some have um uh noise contributors surrounding them. Okay. So um next slide. Um so both all roads and sidewalks paths, bicycle paths, they all have to comply with the zoning code of our land, excuse me, the land development code um and our roadway standards and construction standards. So they all have to do that. Um, if there's gas and electric service, they have to meet the local and state regulations. And if they're going to install utilities, they have to be underground. If there are service buildings and restrooms, they have to meet CDPHEG requirements. At least 60% of the natural landscape and existing vegetation has to be preserved. Um the trash container has to be in in wildlife friendly and uh uh secure um structures or collection areas. And then um as you'll find in our code a lot, no fireworks. So next next slide. The variations we've already talked about um between all of those uses, there's a greater setback for private resorts and guest ranches of that 200 ft versus the 50 ft. the minimum lot size to be able to do these uses. There's the variation between the five and 20 that we just saw on the table. But the maximum occupancy, this is something that's a little different for each of those. And that group camps um under the code say they can allow to 100 people. But after that of full or part-time residents, they should then be considered as private resorts or go guest ranches. And the private resorts say um maximum occupancy is 500 people and then after that they will be

considered through a PUD process. So now we're going to kind of talk about what we think as what are the deficiencies in this next slide. So we believe that an assumption that any use is approx is appropriate to a maximum occupancy without really looking at the adequate sight specific review is is very shortsighted and probably isn't being a good steward of the land um relative to the underlying zone district. the first finding or the first criteria that excuse me, the first standard that we talked about. And so we also see that there are large differences between our zoning districts um between a forestry, recreation, backount, and um resort. And what is the district intent? if you're going to site a group camp, you know, relatively we've um seen group camps um in both backcountry ad forestry and recreation. But backount like item B has um difficulties with accessibility. So assuming um I would say this a code comes in with an applicant kind of assuming I can with a group camp I can automatically um be at least 100 people. Um, so I think there's large assumptions about what is an appropriate max occupancy and max density and that could be widely different between zone districts of what is appropriate in all of those different areas.

Um, it really doesn't speak to how accessible these areas are. We don't think those standards that we just went through, it just said if you have these roads, they have to be built to standards, but how accessible is the site? Um, and what are the neighboring land uses? So, what is going to be the degree of impact to areas? What's going to be the degree of traffic, noise, um, lighting, light pollution? Um, what is that going to be? And so those standards that we went through, it says yes, the underlining zone district, but have we gotten specific enough in our code to set good expectations both in the review of it and also for the applicant. And then all as we know all not all sites are not um equal and so environmental sensitivities flood planes floodways wetlands um excessive slopes being like 30% or 16 degrees of slope that's what we would think as of as excessive or even potentially close to that um alpine tundra view sheds and then also considering the wildlife impacts um you as Melissa just pointed out in our last review for uh strictly tempor temporary occupied structure. You know, we're really starting to want to lean in and and identify, are we um jeopardizing our critical habitats? Um and what what does that mean? And then hazardous and safety. We need to be considering wildfire, um mining hazards, avalanche, those are just a few areas of concern. Um is there adequate utilities? What does sanitation and water look like in all of these different varying degrees of of sites? And is there adequate emergency planning and evacuation? If we're going to have these types of uses, have we actually planned in the code to review them on a well-budded basis? So, this just kind of gives you an overall idea of what what's been driving our planning discussions and are we adequately

reviewing these um with enough information and detail instead of just assuming that five people per acre is the correct density and that 100 or 500 or whatever the maximum is. Is is that is that accurate or could we do a better job of vetting these and reviewing these on a sightspecific review basis? So, um next slide we're going to discuss a little bit about and I do want to know I I'm giving you a so much this is a big data dump and so I promise you we're going to get to a point that we're going to be asking for feedback. We can go back through the slides and and pull things out if you'd like. Um, but right now we're going to talk about what will we need to look at in order to pass a code amendment. These we're really leaning into our criteria. And so what does our comprehensive plan say? Our comprehensive plan has strategies around economic growth um uh element and and what are those um goals and strategies that have been identified and and really it it says that we should better understand our business base and identify the resources they need to thrive. So these four goals all talk about kind of the why. why are we taking a look at this and why is this important for us to to sort this out and do it right? Um because this is a strategy and goal that's been identified in a comprehensive plan. And so those goals have been at um targeting and recruiting businesses and organizations um that can capitalize on the high elevation geography and public lands that we want to look at increasing and sustaining our overnight visitation and increase awareness of the litho lake county as a destination. We want to increase the shoulder season visitation and then we want to extend

those lengths of stay and encourage repeat visitation that by guiding them through the experiences that they can have here both recreationally and heritagebased um experiences and become a destination for that. So that's one of the reasons that that we feel this is really important and that that we have taken the time to lean in on this. So, next slide. And are there changing social values um social and economic current local conditions or new planning concepts that are really driving this work as well? And so the industry is changing. Commercial lodging doesn't look the same um as these these uses probably haven't been touched in I don't know 20 plus years. And so things are looking different. The industry is changing. There's new types of structures out there. There's new types of incinerating and composting toilets. There's new dome structures. There's new tiny home structures. There's so many different new types of commercial lodging that our code doesn't really anticipate or even really think about and experiences. You know, commercial lodging and being able to get out and interface um with uh our natural assets is is a really important thing. are the complaint says that we should be um focusing on to increase um our overall economic development. We know that there is a shortage of managed year-round commercial lodging options. Um we just um another way that that's happening is some of our traditional lodging has been repurposed into workforce housing. You know, just last year we passed the um the reszoning and repurposing of the Silver King into workforce housing. So, some of our traditional lodging options have been lost. We know that we we all kept seeing

the effects of dispersed camping um in our community and we know that that is a really strained resource and that we need to look at ways that we can um manage that better. And then um also I think we all probably know that um our campgrounds are generally booking out 6 months in advance that we don't have a lot of privatelyowned um commercial lodging that gives like a group experience for larger groups. Um the group camps I think the um recent time the largest group camp that I can think that has been approved in Lake County was for 48 people the climax revival. Um and other than that I think that most of our group camps you know top off at around 8 to 12. Um so we definitely see that there are social and economic conditions that are suggesting um that we need to consider whether or not um our code really responds to that and if we potentially need to look at things a little differently. And then the last criteria in considering a a code amendment is are we promoting the public health safety and general welfare of our community. And so with the the the standards that I read to you earlier, we just don't think that they are really adequate or sight specific enough um to even determine what maximum occupancy should be and that that actually maximum occupancy should be a sightspecific um review very intentional and placebased instead of just giving this blanket these are the maximums within the code. Let's take a look at this. for suggesting taking a look at it um more on a sightsp specific basis. So now let's look at what were some draft proposals. Here's some new standards and

want to get the your thoughts on this. So replacing that max occupancy statement and that five per person per person per person per acre standard two such uses require a minimum of 5 acres of land area but allowable occupancy shall be determined through the conditional review process based upon the degree of impact relative to the surrounding area and shall not exceed five people per acre. In order to consider the maximum allowable density, careful consideration will be given to the degree of impact to the underlying zone district and neighboring uses along with adherence to all of the use specific standards contained herein. So instead of just putting blanket numbers out there, we're saying let's let's break this down and let's look at those areas. Maybe some areas make sense to have a higher degree of use as long as we're not making the density higher. So we're we're saying, hey, the five people per acre, that sounds reasonable, but let's not start saying at a at at over 100, you become brick and mortar because maybe um a group camp has a lighter touch on the land than a brick and mortar structure might have. So, does it make sense to maybe take this and look at it more like what can this specific site sustain and what is the proposal in front of you to determine what those maximum occupancy load should be? Then require an additional setback of 200 ft for parcels that are 20 acres or greater. That's just creating an additional buffer. That's kind of marrying the two uses together and not having the this kind of offset. Let's let's just bring it together. require adequately maintained year-round access for an acceptable and an acceptable secondary means of emergency egress for parcels proposing 50 or more occupants. This is something we really spent a lot

of time trying to think about. And so what this would mean is that a lot of these uses might locate on mining claims and those are traditionally 10.33 acres. So if you're going to start saying we want 50 people on a mining crane, does it have year round access? Does it have an acceptable secondary means of egress? Is that a better way? Because our our code is really silent right now about how do we get people in and out? How do we make sure that they're going to be safe? Um if we've got larger groups on there. So this kind of speaks to the well if we go a little higher in that you know or you could come at it from maybe all of these uses the bad country could go up this high. That's another possibility that's in parenthesis. But this is really meant to say as we increase the degree of occupants we need to make sure that we have um adequate access for emergency evacuation. The next one is uses shall not be located in environmentally sensitive areas included but not limited to examples of flood plane wetlands areas of extreme slope that we already talked about and alpine hundra. You know obviously these are areas that that um have risks or that we need to be good stewards of. Next slide. Um at least 60% of the natural landscape and existing vegetation on the subject property must be preserved. You saw that before, but now we're going to say except uh exception is given for mitigating wildfire risk through appropriate mitigation measures. Specifically, it might be necessary and appropriate for property owners to con conduct selective felling and or thinning of trees and brush on their property to decrease the potential of wildfire. Arbitrary or extensive cutting of trees for purposes other than protecting and sustaining forest health or mitigating wildfire risk shall be prohibited. and consultation with a fire

professional is advised to help determine tree and fuel risks. So, you know, this is a way that yes, we want to preserve the natural environment, but we're also um as we're looking to adopt our wildfire resiliency code, promote the goals and strategies within our wildfire mitigation planning that we really we also want to be very cognizant of creating uses that are also aligning with that. Um, you will, this might look really familiar because this is a standard in back country. So, we're applying it to group camp. So, again, being really consistent in our code, you're going to start seeing some consistencies here. The last condition and this condition are ones that you're going to find in other environmentally sensitive areas. Um, number six is recycling is encouraged for all uses, but for any use proposing 100 or more occupants, a recycling plan is required. Um again, good stewardship and making sure that um waste is properly mitigated. Number seven, usage shall demonstrate adequate facilities for sanitary waste, potable water, gray water management, and solid waste refu as approved by state and local department of public health. So that can mean a lot of different things in a lot of different places, but we want to make sure that whatever the outcome of that is, whether it's ball privies, whether it's wells, whether it's a CDPHE water system, whether whatever it is, um that we are making sure we've got adequate facilities in all of these different zone districts to adequately take care of of the use. That's again, something the code has been pretty silent on. Um, next slide. Okay, our last two. We're almost there. Number eight, parcels or areas subject to geologic hazards shall not be developed for any use that might endanger health and safety, life or property unless the hazard can be

eliminated or mitigated in a manner acceptable to the lake to the county. Geological hazards include but are not limited to avalanches and landslides, rock walls, bud flows, unstable slopes or soils, ground subsidance, radioactivity or other environmental hazards such as pro prospect pits at its stoopes shafts or other hazards due to historic mining. Again, you might have seen remember this. It's other places in the code specifically backount um review. And then number nine, additional review. At the discretion of the director, any structure and site plan may be referred to other state and local agencies, including but not limited to public works, Leville Lake County Fire Rescue, andor environmental health. Additional agency review may be needed to address environmentally sensitive areas included but not limited to wildland urban interface, wetland and geologic hazards, critical fish and wildlife habitat, and alpine tundra. So, a little bit of redundancy, but this what this number nine says is we may have to call another agency to just help us figure out how to manage those areas. But this is so what we have done is shift from saying group camps are 100 people and resort and guest ranches are and or camps and vacation lodges are 100 people. Then suddenly without even really any call other than how many occupants you have, you're suddenly a different use that's brick and mortar. So what we're suggesting is that determining the actual occupancy, maximum occupancy load should be really vetted through this review and not determined by your use. um more of a sightspecific review looking at what are the sensitivities, what are the hazards and what are the impacts and so that's the basis of um

the code a minute and go to the next slide. So really excited to hear your feedback and questions. Um, and why you probably know now that we thought it'd be really good to unpack this in a work session instead of trying to bring this for your final decision. We really want to make sure that this feels like something you've had time to think about it and let it sit with you. And so that's why we haven't set the exact hearing yet because we as we started unpacking this um staff really identified this is a pretty heavy lift. And the other part of this is that the commercial lodging conversation we don't feel is over. We also feel like we really do need to look at backount and you know we allowed group camps in back country. Do we need to maybe create a backcountry camp that that is different than a group camp? Do we need to look at campgrounds? Do our campgrounds really match up with what's happening? There are other communities that have looked at the CDPHE um regulations and considered there's a lot of different types of campgrounds from primitive to semi-primitive to semi-developed to modern to developed. So there are a lot of different types and a lot of different communities are doing a lot of different things. So we're not we're saying this is what we kind of think might be some lowhanging fruit. We're not looking to make the code more permissive. We're trying to make it stronger and better. Um, and we do think there's a lot more work to be done. So, in January, we're going to come back with more, but this is our first step into this conversation. Yeah, I think that was going to be my initial statement is just that I find it annoying that we have four different names for things and really just the same rules for all four things and they all just kind of blend together and

that doesn't make any sense to me and I think it's always been a hassle I can think of from the beginning of like trying to decide who fits into what and at the end of the day it kind of doesn't matter because the

the Yeah. And it doesn't make any sense. And I do think that some of what we have can be morphed or um eliminated and replaced with something. Yeah. I just I I don't the four don't necessarily make sense for what we have in current day. Um, and I just, um, I mean, I only know of a couple of applications we have coming up here, but like there's a handful of other ones I've talked to people about in the past, like people's ideas that they have for up here that I've never even thought of that I think tightening this down and really understanding what we want now. And I think that's part of what we're doing with the one community project too is just kind of getting an understanding of what the community wants us to be how we want to approach things like this. And and then unfortunately we have to just kind of piece meal the land development code to match what we want. And so I appreciate that this is step one, but I would my opinion is that it is a really big much bigger like if we if we move forward the occupancy thing to in my opinion makes total sense because like right now if we really have it listed that way somebody can apply for a group camp in the back country and if they have 100 acres in the back country they can apply and assume that they're going to be allowed to have 500 people. That's crazy with no great road access. So, I feel like we want and the thing is is yes, can we deny that conditional use permit? Sure. But it's just the process that people have to go through. I'd rather them be upfront in our code be like, you can do it here, but you can't do it here. Like, let's just be clear about it to start. Um, so I think your proposed, my opinion is your proposed changes make a lot of sense to me, especially the verbiage of sight specific density because I I don't like them the max thing that just is

implied that you can do it unless you have something wrong. Um, but only with the caveat that I think it is super important that we address the other definitions next. you know, like what what are our definitions and what should they be and what are the standards underneath them, which I know is going to be a heavy lift. Hopefully, not as big as back country, but I think it is a heavy lift. Um, but it seems like it's a big one that needs to probably happen if that's the way it is.

So, this process, I like what you're doing and I like setting the high end is a is a limit. Would it start with a site plan and then an actual site visit by CPD? Is that that's really how you'd have to measure this now? Because just having a rendering and a description on paper doesn't give you the the real idea of what a piece of what a parcel of land is capable of. Does that make sense? Is it

right? Well, and the burden would be on the applicant too to provide um a sightsp specific inventory of of what are the incumbrances on the property, what are the you know um potentially that can be done um from a various degrees from surveys up to geotech analysis. So just really, you know, like if there was a basis for needing a um more complex study of of hazard that would be identified or whatever it is, if we need wetlands delineated or if we need flood plane verified, you know, so there may be additional um uh services and

that's where you'd call in the other, but we're really relying on the applicant to provide that additional information and we try to get boots on the ground. um on sites on a regular basis too. So, you know, typically when we have um particularly for conditional use permit um and we're starting to talk about developing a site um you know, when tonight we heard about probably the most minimal impact in the back country with the application you heard tonight up to, you know, these commercial uses that yes, site plans are are really essential by staff and then taking every site specific what what are the attributes and what do we need to dive too.

Well, and just looking at tonight's hearing, that one road access is is a very minimal access and having more than one family back there in an emergency and not having a secondary escape route is completely different conversation, right? Yeah. So, that makes sense. Yeah. I'm waiting. I know you've got them coming. It's going to be about life, isn't it? like no uh I mean we can go that go that road too but the setbacks it said an additional 200 ft in the proposed

oh so I think what I meant is 200 feet so if I said additional good good

okay so that part of it so I was just thinking if you have a 10 acre piece of land and 80% of it is up the side of a hill and you have a 200 foot setback are you ineffectively potentially not allowing anything on that piece of land or could there be an exception made to say, you know, you have 10 acres, so the setback's 200 ft, but you really only have 250 ft of usable space before you're up a slope. So, are they still going to have to meet that requirement? Two two things. one the the 200 foot setback doesn't hit until 20 acres and okay

so 20 acres and then the other is there's variances somebody has a special circumstance because then you would effectively and that would be one of the the basis for um one of the criteria or considerations for a variance and that's exactly what we're talking about here somebody has a 20 acre parcel but and only 16 of those acres were completely unusable then it does change your your overall use, occupancy, all that. So that's exactly what this would address. Okay, that's what I just wanted to make sure.

Absolutely. So obviously that's an area that you're going to avoid and but your setback is around the whole perimeter of your parcel. And so you know um if it would create um decrease to the degree that your usable space maybe that doesn't maybe that actually means that your occupancy of the you know those will be contributing factors like Joey was saying um that you know um in this instance it makes it a lot more sense you really let's dial it down to there's six acres that are actually more usable and if we apply the five person per acre or you know maybe access or whatever it is there you know so but you'll be able to on a case by case have that consideration instead of this assumption in the code that it's just automatic

um you know and maybe there's sites that it makes a whole lot of sense to have beyond 100 but pushing it into brick and mortar doesn't make sense right like is that a you know that's a that's a heavier touch on the land than potentially maybe um this informal structure kind of approach and membrane structures or something.

Yeah. And I and I think to further that it's it is really important because if you can create a site or if you do have a site that half of it's not usable and you're applying that big of density in three acres instead of the other 40 acres and you're suddenly have 100 people on four acres. You're like ah this is a totally different impact in this corner and what's there? What's emergency access? Like I do think that we have to identify. I just think there are so many different ways people are doing these kind of like lodging. I'm just going to call them lodging establishments cuz it's anything from camping to tiny homes to yurts to whatever. And it's just like there's so many different ways you could you could say like I don't care if they can drive to it because they hike up to the huts. But then we're going to have different standards for you to make sure it's safe, you know? So, I just feel like it's that's where we really have to dive into the rest of the definitions of the of this because I think that density is a very big probably the most important thing right away to to to take care of is like make that sight specific. But then I think beyond that there's all these other pieces too that's like you can have somebody who has a really great plan over here that doesn't meet our current standards and one over here that does and it's terrible

applications. So still a cap on density of five people per acre unless there was a variance involved. Right. And it's a five people per acre is is we do think that that's that has a lot of of merit to it. So we So you have a 20 acre parcel only 8 acres are available. Your density is based on that 8 acres. No, it's based on the parcel size. It's based on the parcel size stands today for us to be able to to change as it stands today. The five people per acre. No, I understand that's the proposal would address that where our current code does not. So is there a threshold of that density? it still would max out at that,

right? But in respect to um any kind of emergency services because in the back country you're saying you're kind of omitting. So our CUP guidelines still say it has to meet all of these other criteria in order for us to approve the CUP. So they still would have to demonstrate everything else that we have in there, safety, emergency access, things like that to get the conditional use permit approved. It's just the density right now would be a harder one to rein in on because it's harder to have that conversation of what are you basing that off of and now it's in the code or it could be in the code to

I'm just saying if you have somewhere where you're going to have 100 people but then you don't have adequate access. Are you still allowing 100 people? Well, I think that individual application that's why it would go so that's why we're switching the idea would be to switch the the density to be sight specific because we're not going to let you have 100 people if you don't have good access. So that allows us to make the change as part of this EU hearing which is something that we've been doing on previous EUBS where we've limited occupancy or limited density just because of access.

Okay. The only thing that you know what I think it it's so nice when our code really articulates for an applicant it does the last thing and I think what our code you know we're seeing where there needs to be incremental changes because sometimes I feel that applicants are feeling like it's a moving target like what is staff asking of us and why are you asking this but where does that say it in the code and how does that go so I think the more that we can articulate exactly what are the review standards s that you're going to be held to and it and it's in the code. It's so much easier for them to navigate. It's easier for staff to navigate. It's easier to have good clear expectations for applicants and so then we aren't struggling as staff applicants aren't getting discouraged by our process too. Um and so, you know, we really want to have a code that really speaks to um what to expect through the process. And sometimes I think that I think we potentially have heard that it feels like sometimes that's someone being target when they're moving when they're working with staff and that's the last thing we want it to be.

Mhm. So does the definitions of the different terms that you had in the first couple of slides? Is that lend itself to gray areas other in the code that those really need to be matched somehow? update. Yeah, I think that's where I'm going with it is like I think I think that's next step after this

change would be I think we need to go back and look at those four categories and be like are those real? Are the definitions real? Are they what we want them to be? Do we need to replace them with something else? Do we need to add anything or consolidate them? whatever it is and fix those because it doesn't make these I could mix vacation log and private resort in the same thing in my brain and then you can also but then at the end of the day the way we have it currently in the code is it doesn't really actually matter which one of these you are because you meet the same standards right

so like that doesn't make any sense so I think we have to I think the next step would be to identify these and find which ones you want to keep which ones you want to more and right create different the conditions that you want to modify or they look good I don't see a single one that I disagree with Mhm. I like the verbiage. Yeah. Like I mean group camp it says a group of visitors live temporarily. How is that different from a private resort that has a hotel or motel or campus? Those are still Yeah. living temporarily, right? Like

Yeah. Yeah. So, this would be our next Okay. All right. Our next goal. But right now, and that part's pretty confusing. Like you said, we need to fix the whole lodging commercial lodging section of our code and make sure it's anticipating and has room for things we aren't anticipating. Um but yeah, this doesn't make those zone districts. Yeah. and differentiated zone districts which is really important also but the criteria that you're coming up with seem to be spot on. Yeah. As far as the first change the first change about occupancy or density I think that is your nine points are are great.

Mhm. Great. They are they some of them are coming they're coming from um backcountry view. They're coming from special event um venue. um that's how we deal with density at special event um venues or or facilities. Um so it's keeping everything that we incorporated in there. You can find consistency with how we vet other uses too. So didn't reinvent the wheel. There's some there's some verbiage that is a little more specific like the accessibility like the recycling like those recycling is something I'd like to see throughout the code in different places. Um but generally what we're trying to do is also kind of um you know level the bar um between them all um so that um they're all you know we're we're having that kind of environmental and intentional placemaking throughout our our code and and and as far as impacts too. So

this is a good start. we just need to work on some definitions of specifically what we're talking about first and last after the first of the year. You know, I think that we've got uh we do see this whole scope of work being very very big. Um and so we'll be coming back with a reputation of how we could address that. We've got some ideas. So we'll be coming back. What do you what do you think about utilities in this? What about um which part like water like something? So what's the question about utilities?

Yeah, I mean they can so um next one uses shall demonstrate adequate facilities for sanitary waste, potable water, gray water management, solid waste rep use as approved by the state and local department of public health. So what we want to do, what my thought in creating and crafting this is that can be a variety of different outcomes um based on our local regulations or state regulations. So I would say whatever the use lands on, it has to be something that the state and local um public health regulations can support. Um, Shelby, would you mind opening the um Zoom thing just for me? Um, because I thought I saw Yes, I saw two of our commissioners. I just didn't know if Matt or Elsa, you had anything that you wanted to add as far as staff pursuing this potential code amendment for us.

Uh, let's see. I can just say, yeah, cl, you know, clarity. If someone, if I was someone that wanted to pursue something like this, it'd be nice to have clarity. And so, when it's sight specific, I don't know if that grays it a little bit or or how that could be addressed, but I'm just putting myself in the shoes of someone who may want to do this or maybe looking at buying a parcel and trying to explore it. So, you know, I like what uh what was said about, you know, trying to make it clear, like a clear path with clear instructions and, you know, trying to make it easy for people to see if it's possible or impossible so they don't go down a road that's impossible.

Sure. That's all I got. Do you feel like the language that um was drafted for I mean it does make it sight specific so um which technically it always was as a conditional use permit but this just I think the idea was that the additional language now helps um say what we're going to point to in determining what that density can be. So hopefully that gives them the avenue. Do you feel like that was clear? Do you feel like that needs more?

Um, I would need to study it a little bit more and see and you know, again, put myself in the position of if I wanted to do something like this, does this all make sense? Is it relatively easy to assess? And, you know, there's a lot of information here, so I really can't say right now. Yeah. No, that's fine. That's good. And it seems like a a ton of work you guys put into it. So, but I'm all for it. I mean, this stuff is going to get more and more popular, uh, you know, the more crowded this place gets. So,

yep. And Matt, I'm happy to send over the slide deck. Um, I will be preparing a staff report to you, but I'm happy to just share that slide deck with with everybody so that um, you can take a little more time with it because it is a lot. Like I said, it's a lot. It was a big data dump on you or information dump. Um, and so I I totally appreciate it. You might want it to sit with you for a little bit before you've got more feedback on it. So, but I appreciate personally just Yeah. Just a quick process question. Would this come to the board of review as well for amendment into the code or or would

No, it would be a public hearing with uh a joint public hearing with uh the planning commission and the commissioners and then approval um through you. Um but it is a public process so um can be communicated with public um during that process as well. So yeah,

this is a this is a um legislative process map and it'll it will um amend the land development code. Um but we will be looking for public input on it as well. So we'll have that on our website for anybody that is online and anybody that is in the audience um that would like to provide feedback. um on this, please get with us. Please send us your information. In fact, it probably would be good to put something on our website um that just specifically ask for feedback on this particular code amendment. So, we'll do we'll add that um to our um website and they should have that up and running by the end of the week or next week. So, just for anybody that's here for the public that would like to provide um and give us feedback on what you've heard tonight,

you've got nine potential conditions. Do we want to add uh a one more just for potential traffic or access or adjacent parking, anything like that? Is that something that we want to address on this bus? Um parking. We could we could look at crafting something um that talks about um adequate park. I think parking is um when you're talking about if you have 100 more than that. So I think parking is absolutely something um that should be part of the discussion. I think that's great.

And at some point at some size whether it's the the smaller or the larger one, we would want to look at traffic impacts

and and I will mention that um this will also so if you're if if a building so our code says if you're going to be um any of your development and it requires a building permit, then you do have to do go through the site plan review with the planning commission and that's when we're going to look at specifically spatial kind of things like parking and um you know snow management and you know so all of the actual operations on the site um so we don't do those administratively anything that's commercial has to go through the site plan and all the hearing process so they're just done parking would be part of that site plan review

thank you um I want to give Elsa um I think she was going to give us a little bit of feedback too

oh thanks so much Heather Yeah, I think I am I'm very much a fan of this. Anything that can clean up code that makes it easier for staff and potential land users or developers to navigate the system, I think is a huge benefit. So, I think that I guess what I would ask for is a little bit of an audit about all of the places where our code needs to be cleaned up that could streamline things for staff and potential clients so that we could really have a sense of like what the priorities are or so we could actually direct where we think the priorities are. I don't want us to be like directing staff time just based on what's coming up at the moment, but instead being able to look at it holistically and then inform priorities a little better. So, I guess that's kind of a yes and answer.

Yes. I the the I'm hoping that the the comp plan in the one community project is going to help us identify our priorities first. Um but we I will say that we've been talking about how great and it would be to be able to redo the or the land development code or get a full audit of the land development code, but it's so big and there's so many pieces to it. um that un and I mean it would be a huge cost and way bigger than the comp plan review process I think so that's why it hasn't been done over the years I think it's like something that we have peace nailed at least as long as I've been involved unfortunately um I don't disagree that it would be really nice to figure out how to get the funding and resources to do that at one point but I do think that the outcome of the one community project with the comprehensive plan is going to be a huge huge start this year. Um, I think that even from our last comp plan, I think this one will be exponentially better at identifying things that we need to review in our code to see what needs addressed sooner rather than later um to help us on that. But that's kind of been our issue.

No, I I agree, Heather. I guess what I'm what I also want to inform the process though is like from staff we've you know we've invested in more administrative support for our department heads. So, like being able to work with our county deputy to see to be able to talk with staff and look at it more holistically to see from their point of view, not just through the comp plan or the one community project. Like, yes, I'm hoping the one community project will do a lot, but I don't think it's going to do everything. And it needs to be informed through a staff process, not just what the community sees as the holdups. So, that's I guess what I'm referring to.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I totally agree. This is a baby step, but it's exactly the same thing. It's trying to clean up code and make it an easier thing to navigate. So, it's a it's a it's a small start, but it's a start.

Mhm. And I would say the planning department consistently has a parking lot of areas that we identify that there's um things that are either deficient or there have been changes that need to be addressed. And so we are keeping you know kind of a running list of those and and at the beginning of every year we typically meet with the planning commission and talk about you know what are those kind of things and in the board we the planning commission and board planning commissioners to kind of to identify you know where are some of those areas of the code that need incremental updates or changes based on um just what our needs of our community are or deficiencies in the code. So we do try to do some strategic strategic planning at the beginning of every year to kind of really take a look at that um to kind of set priorities. So I really appreciate what you were saying Elsa because I absolutely agree with it and what um and Heather because um there is work but we did choose at the end of our last compliment comprehensive plan to do incremental changes. We did get a bid at that time from RPI and I think even back then it was to the tune of like $150,000 um which was 10 years ago. So um it isn't something to probably take lightly costwise, but I I totally agree and and really appreciate both the board's support and the planning commission support in looking at ways that we could strengthen our development code. Thank you. Um for all of our public that is here and online, thank you for attending tonight. I because this part of the conversation was a work session with us. It's not really a place where we can take in um public comment on this application or I mean on this because it's not the application public hearing for but we would love it is something that we can talk to you about though

because it's a legislative process. So there's no expire communication as far as this because of that specific application. But the best way to record feedback is to be giving it to staff or in a public hearing. So if you have anything um that you'd like to add or ask questions on or give any input to, please please um get with Ann or Melissa and um or come to the next meeting once we have it on the agenda. Any other I have one silly thing that I'm just

I love your silly things. throw out there real quick and maybe there's already something for this but when we talk about maximum occupancy is it also or is there anywhere so far as horses llama I don't like you know that could potentially I don't so I think our code llama code says one large animal per half acre is our ratio for animals it's not considered part of the same density requirement so potentially an impact act based on water and waste and things like that. Oh, absolutely. You know, if we had um a guest ranch

that came in, we would have to make sure they have domestic water, they would have to be, you know, so we would then we'd be looking at health standards that CDPHA and the Department of Agriculture helped us set that. So, there are state um regulations and guidelines that we can lean into if we ever had something. So those domesticated animals wouldn't necessarily be included in any of those maximum occupancy numbers. It's separate but allows for it. Okay. Yeah.

If if that was an element that came in, then we would be diving in and looking at you know what are the um the guidance that we would get from the state on those kind of things. We als we have some in our code some information in our code but then we'd also be looking at what are those state agencies that would help us um relieve those kind of uses. I can imagine a scenario where it could impact the number of people on the property based upon that.

Yeah. Which is why this all remains a conditional use permit like it still has to be that we factor all of the pieces in in this specific application. What it just does to me is I think that the conditional use permit already allows us to do that. If an application comes and in we don't make this change to the code. It still says that we could say no, we're not going to approve the application because they think it's 500 people's too many for that lot. But by adding this language, this additional language in there, I think it gives a little bit more clarity to an applicant and to planning staff and and um elected and and things is to just be like this is the path that like these are the things you should be considering when deciding that and so that you can condition density easier than just denying applications or vice versa, right? So, I think it just helps say, well, we would determine your density based on how many what other impacts there are, whether it's

on what your use is or neighboring uses are or the steep hill on the back of your lot. Yeah. Cool. Good question. See, no silly questions. No silly questions. Um, okay. Well, thank you again for everybody um making it. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Unless there's Did you Oh, you said like maybe you had something else you wanted to add. She's like, "Oh, we're going." Anybody have a motion? Okay, go ahead. Second. All in favor? Thanks for sticking around, you guys. Sorry about