[0:26] Okay.

[4:32] We got sent today.

[4:33] Yes.

[4:34] I have an S.J.

[4:34] I don't have

[6:02] any.

[6:02] I have a name on here.

[7:17] Come check.

[7:21] Any.

[7:22] Good.

[7:49] Okay.

[7:51] At this time, I will call the regular meeting of the Community Development Commission of January 26, 2026, Order.

[7:57] Mr. Murray, would you please call a roll?

[8:00] Yes.

[8:00] Good evening.

[8:01] Commissioner shorts.

[8:02] Here.

[8:02] Commissioner stats and league.

[8:04] I am here.

[8:04] President here. Vice chair Hunter here. Commissioner Ebek and online commissioner Evans. Can you hear us okay and use your mic.

[8:15] I can hear you.

[8:17] Wonderful and chair Scott.

[8:21] All right. Thank you all.

[8:23] In September of 2024 the Draingo City Council adopted by resolution the following Indigenous land acknowledgement.

[8:30] This is a call to honor and respect indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, as residents and visitors of Durango, we are called upon to educate ourselves about the history and cultural heritage of the land we inhabit.

[8:43] The city of Draingo is situated on the ancestral home lands and territories of the new

[8:49] Chuu, Yut, Kikariya Apache, Puebloes of New Mexico, Kopi Sinam, and Dene or Navajo

[8:58] Nations.

[8:58] The original stewards of this land were forcefully removed and exposed to countless atrocities

[9:03] by the United States government, including repeatedly broken treaties, forced assimilation,

[9:08] and the tragic legacy of Indian boarding schools and the loss of ancestral home lands.

[9:14] We recognize lasting generational trauma exists within Native communities today.

[9:19] We also affirm the continuing importance of ancestral sites to descendant communities as integral to the living cultural landscape.

[9:25] The acknowledgement only becomes meaningful when combined with accountable relationships and informed actions.

[9:30] May this serve as a step towards inclusion and reconciliation?

[9:35] All right. Moving on, I will go ahead and move to the Announcements section of our agenda.

[9:42] Staff, do you have any announcements or changes to the agenda that you're aware of tonight?

[9:47] I have several items I'd like to bring up at the end under reports and discussion items.

[9:52] Okay, noted, I will remind, help remind me, but I will make a note.

[9:57] Commissioners, any changes to tonight's agenda that we should be aware of or you like to request?

[10:05] Chair.

[10:06] Commissioner Abbott.

[10:07] Thank you.

[10:09] Commission, if you will, and Bill's may I have three.

[10:11] I have one fourth one for the discussion part of the agenda, but I do have three.

[10:16] Point of information, agenda item 7.2.

[10:20] I would request inclusion of code of Colorado regulations, inspection and consumer services division.

[10:26] R-E-8-C-C-R-12-2-15, section 11 physical facility standards, which I distributed last week

[10:35] to the commission.

[10:36] This counters the previous comment of no state regulations that are included in the

[10:42] minutes that we'll be looking at, but I wanted to make sure that that was incorporated

[10:45] in that particular agenda item.

[10:50] Another point of information,

[10:54] I would ask that Agenda Item 4, 7,

[11:04] 8.1, Agenda Item 8.1, consideration for the presentation, commission review, to exclude drawings and renderings of interior school building design, and again, I presented information at the state session regarding that one.

[11:22] and the agenda item for consideration placed on the agenda.

[11:27] As I proposed to the Commission last week, a motion for a resolution of the City

[11:31] Drangle City Council requesting a change of current one-year mandate term for the

[11:36] Community Development Commission Board Chair to a maximum consecutive two-year

[11:40] board chair, tenure inclusive of an annual renewal by a majority board vote.

[11:46] I would like to incorporate that on the agenda as an action item.

[12:09] Thank you, Chair Scott. I would like to make one more note on the state regulations for the animal rescue and variants rescue use that in the preamble of those statements, I think it's section 2.

[12:23] something. It states they only apply to facilities that have more than 15 dog

[12:29] canals or have more than X number I've forgotten how many transfers per year. So I

[12:36] guess I'd like to caution the applicant to read that statement first and see if they

[12:41] are a big enough facility to need a state permit.

[12:48] Any other comments from the commissioners here?

[12:53] commissioners I would ask if there are any real or perceived

[12:56] conflicts of interest of anything on tonight's agenda that we should

[12:59] disclose. I see none here commissioner Evans and sure camera is not working

[13:03] tonight would you just verbally confirm if you have any conflicts of interest.

[13:07] I do not have any conflict. Okay. All right. I've seen none will move on. I do

[13:13] have if the commission will indulge me I have a couple of things for just I

[13:18] we'll call them chair, comments or whatever, which are just to address them business items for

[13:24] the commission. I'll make this relatively quick. First I want to take a moment to clarify

[13:30] two process items as we move forward together to continue to strengthen how we work as a commission.

[13:35] First, I want to acknowledge that sharing educational materials, background information and resources

[13:40] is both appreciated and important. That said, to help ensure transparency, consistency and

[13:46] co-axis information for all commissioners. I would ask that any materials intended for the full

[13:51] commission be sent to Mr. Murray for distribution. This will ensure that everyone receives

[13:56] the same information at the same time and that materials are properly included in the public

[14:01] record when appropriate. I think that's a simple change we can all do a better job of making sure

[14:07] the Mr. Murray gets those and distributes those on our behalf. Secondly, I would like to outline

[14:13] a proposed process for bringing items forward for discussion at future meetings.

[14:18] Similar to the approach that is used by a city council, I would suggest that we use item nine reports and discussion items as the appropriate place to raise new topics or requests.

[14:27] Under the approach, a commissioner would briefly describe the item and request a simple majority vote of a commission to indicate support for bringing a matter for further discussion, referral to staff or consideration by city council.

[14:41] And so, Commissioner Epic, I think that is what I would propose as a potential for your item.

[14:48] My general hope for this process is that it provides a clear, fair and efficient way

[14:51] to prioritize topics, respect staff time and ensures that issues brought forward reflect the collective interest

[14:56] of the commission rather than any individual.

[15:01] I want to thank you all for your continued engagement and thoughtful contributions, and I appreciate the collaborative spirit. We're all bringing forward to this, and I think that might be a way in which we can start to accomplish some of the items on our joint work list and have some further discussion on.

[15:18] Before I move on, does anyone have any quick comments or response to that?

[15:23] Okay, we can talk about a briefly at the end of the meeting just as fair bones, time, some more, but I would ask for one further indulgence from the commission in the staff, which is just that I would like to briefly reflect on a recent drink or herododical on January 21st, 2026 reporting on city council's discussion about changes to the LUDC as Earth as it relates to ADUs.

[15:47] What's it out to me was how closely the issues raised aligned with the concerns many

[15:52] to you expressed when the ADU code amendment came before this commission.

[15:56] You focus not only on the text amendment itself, but on how ADU's are actually functioning

[16:00] in the community, on the complexities of registration, tracking and enforcement.

[16:04] Several of you also raised important questions about infrastructure and plaque, including

[16:08] parking and utility capacity.

[16:11] On underscore that this kind of careful review of policy implementation is a critical part

[16:15] of what I view this commission's role. One of our core duties is to ensure the code amendments

[16:19] brought before us or initiated by us are informed by real world outcomes and advancing the

[16:25] long term goals of our community, not just short term policy objectives. These types of thoughtful

[16:32] reviews directly support the city of Draingo community development goals of fostering a sustainable

[16:37] inclusive and thriving environment through strategic growth management, affordable housing

[16:42] initiatives and engaged and enhanced civic engagement.

[16:47] Your engagement helped elevate these concerns early, and it's encouraging to see

[16:51] them now reflected in the broader community and at council discussions.

[16:55] And I just want to thank you all for the seriousness and care you bring to your work here.

[16:59] So, genuinely felt.

[17:02] All right.

[17:03] On that note, let's go ahead and move into our meeting as a whole.

[17:08] So we'll go to item number four, which is our public comment.

[17:12] I have a brief preamble for this.

[17:15] Given that all meetings of the Community Development Commission

[17:18] are hybrid meetings, allowing for both in-person and virtual

[17:21] participation, there are some details of how we'll run this meeting,

[17:24] which I'll explain before we get into this section of public comment.

[17:28] First, at every opportunity for public comment,

[17:31] I will call on those joining via teams first

[17:33] to be followed immediately by those president chambers tonight.

[17:35] of note, the chat feature in Teams is disabled for comments and they are at each meeting.

[17:41] Our moderator, who's Mr. Murray, will call on those joining via Teams in order.

[17:45] During your comments, you'll be asked to turn on your video,

[17:48] and please identify yourself for the record.

[17:50] Please know you only need to give your name when you identify yourself.

[17:54] Public comment is welcome and appreciate it, and there will be an opportunity for a public comment for each project.

[17:59] However, this section of public comment is for items that are not on today's agenda,

[18:03] but fall under the per view of the community-developed commission.

[18:07] In addition, while the commission listens to and carefully considers all public comments,

[18:11] we do not respond directly to members of the public.

[18:14] During hearings, the commission will have the opportunity to follow up with the staff during our meetings

[18:19] about items or concerns that members of the public raise during this and all other sections of public comment.

[18:25] Finally, as is our tradition to accommodate everyone,

[18:28] the commission does limit comments to three minutes per person for all public comments.

[18:32] So, with that, at this time, I will open public comments for items not on tonight's agenda.

[18:39] And if you're online, please raise your hand on teams and Mr. Murray will call on you.

[18:45] Right, taking a moment, please sure to use the raise hand function if you'd like to speak on items not on the agenda.

[18:55] I do not see any hands raised.

[18:58] And there's anyone present in chambers tonight, like to make a comment for an item not on tonight's agenda.

[19:03] saying no one to last call Mr. Merini by the online real quick.

[19:09] Just to make sure. No hands raised. All right.

[19:12] With that, I will close this section of public comment.

[19:15] We will go ahead and move on to agenda item 5.1, which is the approval of the December 8, 2025 Community Development Commission meeting.

[19:26] Those at that meeting in present here tonight are Vice Chair Hunter, Commissioner Epic, Commissioner Evans, Commissioner Frederickson, Commissioner Swartz, and Commissioner Statson Lee.

[19:35] And I am aware of at least one at the minutes that a commissioner would like to make, but I will open it up to you all for any comments or corrections that need to be made in the minutes.

[19:47] I have one.

[19:50] Go ahead, Commissioner Evans.

[19:53] It's page 5, paragraph 10,

[20:01] that should be Commissioner Hunter, make those comments, I don't want to take her thunder away on that one.

[20:20] Commissioner Evans, could you clarify a really quick which specific items for us?

[20:27] Sure,

[20:30] I'm getting there.

[20:37] Commissioner Hunter asked about the use of the dog bark.

[20:42] Okay. Okay. So it's, um, yeah.

[20:48] Mr. Marie, you got that?

[20:51] Okay.

[20:55] Mr. Swords, did you have a correction as well?

[20:59] Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

[21:01] All right.

[21:04] Does anyone have anything further?

[21:05] If not, I would look for a motion to approve the minutes with the correction as, um,

[21:11] presented by Commissioner Evans.

[21:12] So moved.

[21:14] Second.

[21:15] Okay. Mr. Marie.

[21:18] Commissioner Schwartz. Yes, Commissioner Setson Lee. Yes. Commissioner Frederickson. Yes. Vice chair Hunter. Yes. Commissioner Epic. On line commissioner Evans. Yes. And chair Scott as I was not present at the meeting at abstain.

[21:37] Right

[21:42] catching up. We're moving along here. Sorry everybody. All right. Yes. It is today.

[21:53] Thank you. All right.

[21:57] Item six is our consent agenda items placed on the consent agenda or a place there with the belief that no discussion beyond what is in the meeting packet is warranted.

[22:05] On tonight's consent agenda, however, we do not have any items, so we will go ahead and move along to our public hearings.

[22:13] Our first public hearing is item 7.1, which is Project PR25-82, the Night Horse Development

[22:19] Major Site Plan and Design Review.

[22:22] As is noted in the packet, staff and the applicant have requested a continuation of this

[22:27] review to our regular meeting of May 18, 2026.

[22:31] At this time I would ask the commissioners if they are supportive of this to go ahead and

[22:35] provide a motion for this continuation.

[22:38] So moved.

[22:39] So we have a

[22:44] second.

[22:46] Mr. Mayor,

[22:51] sure.

[22:54] All right.

[22:54] Well, we have a notion.

[22:55] Does anyone have any questions for the planners?

[23:02] I can just clarify then that this proposed project is a new review for a modified project that was before the Community Development Commission initially in 2023.

[23:13] It had a continuance to 2024, and this particular continuance before you tonight is at the

[23:20] request of the applicant due to the recent passing of the former Colorado representative

[23:25] and Senator Ben Knight-Horse came.

[23:29] And they are requesting a continuance to a May date.

[23:37] Any questions for staff?

[23:41] All right.

[23:42] As it's just a continuance, I don't believe we have to open public hearing.

[23:46] So if I made point of order, yeah, would not hurt to open public comment being this is on the agenda.

[23:56] So Mr. Murray would like us to go ahead.

[23:58] I will open public comment this time on 7.1.

[24:01] And again, it was noticed that this would be a request for continuous.

[24:05] But we would happily have anyone online or in person would like to provide comment on this to come on forward.

[24:11] I'd

[24:13] be sure to raise your hand if you'd like to make public comment online.

[24:19] I'm seeing no hands raised.

[24:21] Okay, anyone here want to provide comments on this project at this time?

[24:27] All right.

[24:27] Well, come back on May 18th.

[24:30] Mr. Murray, let's call the roll on that continuous motion.

[24:32] Thank you.

[24:33] Anything bad?

[24:33] No, I think I would just add that I do have some public comments that came in the mail.

[24:37] Those will be included in staff report when the project is continued to the May 18th,

[24:42] 2026 meeting.

[24:44] And we also plan to repost to re-nodify everyone.

[24:52] Mission of shorts.

[24:54] Yes.

[24:54] Mission of sets and lean.

[24:57] Yes.

[24:57] Mission of Frederickson.

[24:59] Yes.

[24:59] Vice chair Hunter.

[25:00] Yes.

[25:00] Commissioner Evans online.

[25:04] Yes.

[25:05] And chair Scott.

[25:07] Yes.

[25:07] So with that, the continuance is unanimous.

[25:10] And we will hear about that project on May 18, 2026.

[25:13] Thank you.

[25:16] All right. At this time, I'll go ahead and open public hearing on item number 7.2, which is Project PR25-75. In addition, it's the conditional use permit 25-2.

[25:29] Parker's animal rescue variants and CUP. At this time, the Commission would invite director Lobco to

[25:41] Okay,

[25:45] good evening, as you recall, this application came before you on December the 8th,

[25:51] both for the variance and the conditional use permit, where both of those did receive a recommendation of approval.

[25:57] Didn't like that.

[26:00] The variance was for the required one acre lot size, and then the condition of use permit was subsequent to that.

[26:08] I do meet all the other criteria for that.

[26:10] This is coming back before you, not because anything is changed,

[26:14] but because we did not completely comply

[26:17] with the public notice requirements.

[26:19] When it came before you went December the 8th,

[26:21] so we did have to reduce and noticing requirements

[26:23] and bring it back before you.

[26:25] So nothing has changed at this point,

[26:26] but I do have the two motions up there.

[26:29] And I believe the applicant is here.

[26:30] If we have any additional questions,

[26:32] but I would ask that we give public an opportunity

[26:35] to comment just in case someone was not able

[26:38] to attend the last time and receive the notice at this time.

[26:47] Commissioner, do we have any questions for staff before we open into public comment?

[26:53] I know you all had a chance to review this last time and I have reviewed it well.

[26:58] Commissioner, I think it looks like you may.

[27:00] Please.

[27:01] Going with my previous discussion point,

[27:05] I'm now hearing from Vice Chair.

[27:10] Is there any need for the consideration of Colorado regulations in terms of this variance and what is occurring there? Or is it outside of that particular state per view?

[27:23] Based on a size, I believe it's out of the per view. However, it will be part of the building permit process that if they need to have one of those that will be required at that point.

[27:31] Okay. Thank you.

[27:36] Okay.

[27:40] Is the applicant here tonight by chance?

[27:42] Just, I don't know if you have anything you want to add.

[27:44] We would invite you up.

[27:45] I know you already did a presentation,

[27:47] but if you have anything, you certainly will be welcome before we open public comment.

[27:53] I don't have anything else to add.

[27:55] But I know you weren't here if you had any specific questions.

[27:58] Thank you all again for your review.

[28:00] We'd waited one more week.

[28:01] It would have been truly ground hot day.

[28:03] Exactly.

[28:04] No, I appreciate you again.

[28:05] I have no questions, but I do have a technical thing just for my type-up minutes. Can you identify

[28:10] yourself for the record? Sorry. Lisa Parker with Parker's own rescue executive director.

[28:15] Thanks. Just save someone from having to try to remember. Thank you very much.

[28:21] All right.

[28:22] So with that, I will go ahead and open public hearing as a reminder while the Commission

[28:28] listens to and carefully considers all public comment on each project. We do not directly answer

[28:33] questions asked by the public. We do have the opportunity to address any concern raised by

[28:37] public or staff or with the staff or the applicant as appropriate. I'm sorry about that.

[28:44] So with that, I will go ahead and open our public hearing on this item, which is Project PR25-75

[28:52] and CUP25-2. And Mr. Murray, if you would let anyone online go ahead and be promoted if anyone raises

[29:01] their hand and that'd be one. Okay. Please use the raise hand function if you'd like to make

[29:06] public comment.

[29:10] If you do not see any hands raised. And would any members of the public present

[29:15] in chambers tonight like to provide comment on this item? All right. I don't see anyone. Commissioners,

[29:22] I will bring it back to you for any additional clarifying things or items that came up in the last 30

[29:27] seconds or so. All right. Commissioner Evans, since you are not on camera, I just want to make sure

[29:33] not leaving you out is everything any questions or clarifications required for you.

[29:44] Commissioner Evans, I believe you're still muted unfortunately.

[29:55] That's the space bar to unmute.

[30:02] Was just working out some tech issues with commissioner Evans. I'm not sure if that.

[30:08] Is that her back?

[30:20] And now I'm sad that I missed a meeting with puppies.

[30:23] So thanks for that. I didn't know.

[30:28] Mr. Murray is commissioner Evans communicating with you. She will be able to get back on. Hopefully, here.

[30:38] I am. Okay.

[30:41] Any questions that you'd like to raise for staff at the applicant before we potentially move this forward commissioner Evans?

[30:50] No, I'm fine. Thank you.

[30:53] Okay.

[30:54] With that, commissioners, I will bring it back to any of you for a motion.

[31:02] I move to approve the requested variance for Parker Animal Rescue at

[31:08] 20778 Highway 160 West based on the binding stated in this staff report.

[31:16] Do we have a second on the variance?

[31:18] Oh, second.

[31:21] Mr. Any discussion amongst the commission?

[31:25] Mr. Murray, would you please call the roll?

[31:26] Yes. Commissioner Schwarz.

[31:28] Yes.

[31:28] Mr. Schwarz.

[31:29] Yes.

[31:30] Mr. Schwarz.

[31:32] Yes.

[31:33] Commissioner Evans.

[31:37] Yes.

[31:39] And chair Scott.

[31:40] Yes. So with that, the first motion to approve the requested variance passes unanimously.

[31:47] And because this is a two part approval, we have a second to go ahead and get this through,

[31:52] which is the conditional use permit.

[31:54] Would anyone like to make an emotion on that?

[31:58] Yes, I move to approve the to approve of the proposed conditional use permit for parker animal rescue at

[32:05] at 2077-8, having 160 West, based on the findings and conditions stated in this staff report.

[32:14] Do we have a second?

[32:15] All second.

[32:17] Commissioner, and any discussion you'd like to have?

[32:22] Okay.

[32:24] Commissioner Evans, I'll trust you to speak up if you do have anything you'd like to discuss.

[32:27] Mr. Murray, can we go and call the roll?

[32:30] Yes. Commissioner Schwartz. Yes. Commissioner Stetson Lee?

[32:34] Yes. Commissioner Frederickson? Yes.

[32:36] Vice Chair Hunter. Yes. Commissioner Epic. Yes. Commissioner Evans. Yes.

[32:42] And Chair Scott. Yes. So with that, that motion also passes unanimously.

[32:49] Sorry you had to come back. Thank you very much.

[32:55] All right. We will move on to item 7.3 on

[32:59] our agenda, which is the Light and Recreed Commons Plan Development Preliminary Development Plan.

[33:04] Woo, that is a lot right there.

[33:06] That is product 2585, and I believe Ms. Bernstein

[33:09] with community development has presentation for us tonight.

[33:14] Good evening, commissioners.

[33:18] Right this evening, you will be reviewing a proposed

[33:21] preliminary development plan for Lightener

[33:23] Com, Lightener Creek Commons.

[33:29] This was sent to the Innovative Housing

[33:31] and Economic Development goal in our strategic plan.

[33:38] And you all are tasked this evening with conducting

[33:41] public hearing and considering making a recommendation which will then go on to city council.

[33:47] This item is both the preliminary plans, the development plan within that, and then the zoning

[33:53] to PD plan development. Both of those items are included in the motion recommended motion for this evening.

[34:02] A little bit of background on this project. So this parcel of land was initially owned by twin

[34:13] compliance agreement in 2023, 2024, the Twin Beats Development agreed to transfer this

[34:22] parcel to the city as part of as one of the mechanisms for them to satisfy their affordable

[34:27] housing requirements.

[34:31] So with that in place in the city now owns the property.

[34:34] We sent out a request for proposals and ended up selecting and entering into a partnership

[34:38] with elevation community land trust.

[34:40] They are the applicant here this evening, although it is important to recognize that the city does on this parcel.

[34:48] Elevation has also partnered with a couple other folks, including tributary development, rental dash and SEH.

[34:57] In 2025,

[35:02] this PD conceptual development plan went through UAL and then onto city council for approval.

[35:08] So this preliminary development plan is the next step.

[35:14] A little bit of context here, this is an arrow pointing to the subject property

[35:18] out west on Highway 160 outside of town.

[35:22] In city limits, but outside town.

[35:25] And zoomed in to the property here.

[35:28] This image does show the buildings that were previously on this parcel,

[35:33] the animus high school buildings.

[35:35] Those no longer exist on this site, the parcel is vacant.

[35:42] And the preliminary development plan.

[35:45] So as part of this review, we looked at the technical compliance for preliminary development plan, a major site plan review.

[35:56] There was a couple pieces that were called out as far as requiring more information, including regarding snow storage,

[36:02] a lighting plan and compliance with the 2025 Colorado wildfire resiliency code.

[36:07] Those are included in a recommended motion for you all to include.

[36:13] The applicant did include some design concepts for their buildings on the site

[36:23] and digging into the review criteria.

[36:26] The pieces that are important at this step is consistency with the conceptual development plan approval.

[36:35] And ensuring that what they're proposing now meet city engineering standards as well as the major site plan elements that we're discussing the staff report.

[36:47] We have not received any public comments on this application and staff does recommend approval

[36:53] of the preliminary development plan and rezoning with a couple of conditions included.

[37:03] Those conditions include just for the applicant to a supplement some information as discussed

[37:09] from both planning and engineering and during a fire. It's anticipated that these changes are

[37:15] technical and nature and would not make any changes to the site plan itself.

[37:22] So, I do have a recommended motion up here, and we also have the applicant present, who I believe would like to make a presentation.

[37:35] Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Francine?

[37:41] Go ahead and Commissioner Fredrickson.

[37:44] I apologize for not bringing this up earlier in the study session, but I just refresh my memory during your presentation that this is technically in the twin-butes annexation version of city of being in the city proper.

[37:58] And one thing that I brought up regarding that when that took place back once ago when we reviewed this was that all

[38:06] structures within 20 needs development are supposed to be sprinkler

[38:10] And if there's been any resolution to that question with

[38:14] Dering of fire.

[38:15] You have great memory.

[38:16] So we discussed this last year during conceptual development plan.

[38:20] I, my memory isn't serving me correctly as to when this parcel was annexed

[38:25] But to speak to whether or not it's included in the Twin Beats development, it is not.

[38:32] There was confusion last year about how it was owned and if it was included in the Twin Beats development and it was not.

[38:41] So it's not subject to that sprinkler requirement.

[38:45] Thank you.

[38:46] Vice-chair Hunter, please.

[38:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[38:49] I have some questions for staff, but I will hold them until after the applicants presentation.

[38:55] Thank you.

[38:58] Commissioner Fathom Lane?

[38:59] Just a quick clarification.

[39:02] As you said that if we approve this, then it goes to City Council.

[39:07] So any recommendations or amendments we add will be considered by them.

[39:13] That's the way it goes. Okay, great.

[39:16] And Commissioner Fathom, please go ahead.

[39:18] Just requesting clarification on a question that I had for the study session regarding

[39:22] extra your staircases on that top right unit and other units that are proposed within a stocking

[39:30] set?

[39:31] Yep, I believe this section you're referring to was a disallowing exterior staircases for

[39:35] duplex units that has been flagged for the applicant and I believe that they're prepared to address

[39:40] that.

[39:44] Anything further, commissioner?

[39:46] Commissioner Evans, please go ahead and speak up if you have a question now.

[39:50] for staff.

[39:56] Okay. Um, then I would invite the applicant and or their agent up.

[40:11] I'm joining. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record. Yes. My name is Blika Seaman,

[40:17] which should be Terry development. And I'm Scott Simmons. Should be Terry. And we have,

[40:23] Steffka Fancy is on by phone CEO of ECLT. Great. Thank you and welcome. Thank you all.

[40:34] So we're trying to, we want to be sensitive to time, so we'll be quick with going through just an overview of the project.

[40:41] As you all know, this project sits on 3.29 acres of land that town is or city is donating as part of being able to deliver these units on affordable basis 29 units.

[40:56] We've got them split between three different bedroom configurations.

[41:02] So eight one bedroom, thirteen two bedroom, a three bedroom on the site.

[41:07] We do have amenities serving the owners that will come into the property.

[41:14] And so want to make sure we have storage as part of the units we're delivering.

[41:20] We've got some, we think very nice common area to engage the community, twinbeutsis partnering with us and we're working with twinbeutsis on build out of the light or creek trail so that'll be a direct connection into this parcel.

[41:38] And then we do as part of the development we'll have EV charging stations and then certainly bike storage.

[41:46] And here's a zoom in at the overall site plan, it's pretty dense development, but I think one thing we've been able to achieve is, you know, a majority of the units open out to open space. So they have a shared common area that we really think will be essential amenity. So I think 20 out of the 17 out of the 29 have open space right outside their front door.

[42:09] And then there's some small areas in the back that will be more private.

[42:13] All the units have front portures and these front portures are deep enough that they're not just nice to look at.

[42:19] They're actually functional. So we think this will be a very livable community, even though it is relatively dense.

[42:27] And we've been sensitive trying to hide the parking in the back of the units.

[42:32] And providing adequate parking because this is kind of one way in one way out.

[42:36] So there will be enough parking that there will be several visitor parking spaces, and I think that's really important for this neighborhood to be a livable community.

[42:45] That's kind of the overview of the site plan.

[42:48] We haven't, we've refined the concept a little bit since you probably last seen it, but I think the bones of it have stayed very similar.

[42:54] Just wanted to go over this item. Next slide.

[42:57] Um, so a little more detail. I won't be described. I think, you know, we do want to provide a range of offerings, so we do have two different two bedroom designs.

[43:08] Um, one more affordable, a little less square footage on a single story.

[43:15] Whereas, our other two-bedroom is a two-story building,

[43:23] we thought, originally, I think

[43:26] the plan we presented previously, we had a little fewer one-bedrooms.

[43:30] We've seen in a number of our projects targeting workforce and affordable housing because of

[43:37] that lower price point that one-bedroom size unit can be very attractive just because, again,

[43:44] in the nominal lower price point, we are in partnership with ECLT, these will all be

[43:52] de-restricted and so the units will sell for 100% AMI or less. We are working with the

[44:02] Durango School District on a potential bulk sale to them that they would then rent to

[44:10] they're workforce and so there's an RFI out right now, but we've been in prior conversations with them and so excited to explore ways that they could be a part of this development alongside the ECLT references.

[44:29] And these are just the floor plans of the various units that Blaker was just describing

[44:34] of the different two-bedroom options and then a prototype of the five-plex that what

[44:40] that would look like, two, three-bedroom units and then three, two-bedroom units and then

[44:46] we do have these one-bedroom stacked units and, you know, we've worked with Reynolds

[44:51] to already modify this plan to have that enclosed stair so that you would have.

[45:00] You wouldn't have an exterior stair that's shown here. We have a plan that's already been modified to include that with a roof over it. Yes.

[45:10] Oh, yeah. There's a way to do that.

[45:22] So this changes the stair orientation. I think it is a couple things that are beneficial to the unit. The stair is no longer right in front of the window on the down the ground floor unit. No one wants the stair right outside your window.

[45:34] So this, you know, makes that patio space for the ground floor resident much more usable.

[45:39] And then it has an, you know, an enclosed stair that leads up to that second store unit.

[45:44] So we try to incorporate that comment and they provided this exhibit.

[45:56] And these are just some concept rendering showing some of those open spaces.

[46:00] How the space could feel.

[46:03] And like the top left image, that's that central open space.

[46:06] And we put probably mailbox clusters close to that.

[46:09] you'd have some visitor parking parallel on the street, and then there's other various, you know,

[46:14] renderings just to give you a sense of the space and how that could be laid out.

[46:21] I think we laid out the schedule here. We are, you know, this project we've been working on for

[46:27] some time. And so we're really excited to get started. So our goal subject to

[46:33] receiving approval, move forward at the city council meeting and then continue to move forward

[46:40] on the approvals whereby being placed to put a shovel in the ground in July August timeframe

[46:47] as a start. When we originally presented this project to you all, now about a year ago,

[46:56] we were contemplating modular construction. We've been stead now working with modular manufacturers

[47:02] and then local GC determine we can deliver it at a lower price point, honestly,

[47:08] stick building, so doing site-built homes, so I've been working with a GABA Durango

[47:14] as a potential GC for the project. So our site construction will extend into 2027,

[47:24] where we'll deliver units. The first units will be delivered. We're targeting Q3, 2027,

[47:31] And then continue to deliver units and final units delivered in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 28th.

[47:44] So we're, I think, well, we'll restate what Lee Ann stated as it relates to seeking approval,

[47:51] but certainly open to questions.

[47:53] You all may have.

[47:55] Yeah, commissioners, all, commissioner Swartz.

[47:58] You, when you, by the year hand first.

[48:01] Um, and you have a quick question. So on your last side, you said that the units are going to be delivered, but you also said that there's stick belt. How does that work?

[48:09] Oh, deliver. It doesn't come to market. I'd like for sure. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That helps.

[48:17] Mr. Seth and later ahead.

[48:19] Yeah. A few questions. I appreciate the inclusion of some EV charging parking options. One of the things that I'm curious about is there's a lot of black.

[48:31] Yeah. And just kind of thinking about things on the overall project in terms of climate, climate change, heating and cooling costs.

[48:42] Black on the north side of the highway there is going to be hot and it looks like the roof is hot. There's a fair amount of black maybe stucco on the sides.

[48:52] Have you considered increased cooling costs as a potential of that.

[49:00] I would say that we're talking about black as a color and most likely will change the color.

[49:07] Okay.

[49:07] That's a pretty high contrast intense color pick.

[49:12] And so we have not finalized the final roof color or building elevation colors.

[49:18] Definitely would take that in consideration.

[49:20] Especially given the solar heat gain of that.

[49:24] Okay.

[49:26] And then along those lines.

[49:29] I wasn't able to dig into all the plans, but given that this is a partnership with the community and the public, it seems like it'd be a good opportunity to go as low-carbon, zero-carbon, living as possible, and do all electric utilities.

[49:46] seen as the grid is going to be electric sometime.

[49:51] It's going to be zero carbon in the future.

[49:53] Okay.

[49:53] Excellent.

[49:53] Hi efficiency.

[49:55] And in the units, it'll be all electric build.

[49:58] Okay.

[50:01] Commissioner Fragrance.

[50:03] Nothing for you.

[50:04] Vice-chair Hunter.

[50:07] Okay.

[50:07] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[50:08] I have a list of questions so I'll try and go through them quickly.

[50:12] As I read the staff report, they were recommending if we can bring up a slide that shows

[50:18] the site plan with the retention funds. In the city engineer I believe was recommending that the

[50:26] retention funds could be developed as an amenity. Have you considered that? I realize one of them

[50:33] is quite near the highway, but it's also got the twin-beats trail system between it and the highway.

[50:41] I definitely, yes, I would say the stormwater pond on the bottom right corner, that's an existing stormwater pond that we're trying to reuse.

[50:53] Since it's already there in that infrastructure is in place, it makes sense for that to stay.

[50:57] And then the way the site is drained and graded, the next best location is where we're showing it just to the north.

[51:05] We could look at potentially a depressed area.

[51:08] We want to make those open spaces as usable as possible.

[51:11] So that you can go out there and use them.

[51:14] So we would want to be sensitive of that if we did, in fact, depressed those areas.

[51:19] But is something that we would consider if we need additional storage area?

[51:23] Okay, great.

[51:24] Great.

[51:24] Thank you.

[51:25] And my next question is similar.

[51:27] The, also in the staff report, it said, you were moving the trees away from your new units

[51:35] because of wildfire danger and I certainly accept that. However, the one of the purposes of

[51:42] trees in the code is to shade pavement because, as was mentioned previously, that hot sun shining

[51:49] on the black asphalt can really contribute to a heat island. So, have you considered when we

[51:56] your site plan here and we look at your internal drive. Have you considered planting trees along

[52:03] between that internal drive and that twin-boots trail to shade the asphalt? That is it. It's going

[52:12] to be a tight area, honestly, to comply with the trail with the creek. So as much as possible,

[52:22] will certainly want to get that landscape, but I will acknowledge there's limited space there.

[52:28] A good solution that is used on our downtown sidewalks is a walkable tree grate.

[52:36] So the tree trunk itself could be, you know, in the middle of the, not maybe in the middle,

[52:42] but at the side of a trail and still be able to be used.

[52:46] Yeah, because I think in the summertime, it's hard to remember this in our cold winter, but in the summertime, you really appreciate that shade.

[52:54] So, and let's see, um, the, um, oh, and this is the last short question.

[53:03] So, also on this site plan, um, I noticed some homes could be a long distance to carry their groceries.

[53:11] have you considered assigning parking spaces to units and maybe putting the visitor spaces in a place

[53:19] that's left over so that people could if they get home with five bags of groceries and they don't

[53:25] have to carry them a long way.

[53:30] I mean I think we could definitely consider that hopefully there's

[53:34] there is parking adjacent to most units pretty close and I think naturally if somebody doesn't take

[53:40] their spot. I mean, I'm looking at the unit on the very left side, the west end. And if I came home with five

[53:48] bags of groceries and noticed that all five of those parking spaces were already taken, I'd be

[53:53] muttering some things under my breath. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, those are definitely ones that would be the

[53:59] most difficult to access given the just the parallel parking right there. But we could consider that.

[54:06] something to consider, and I think, again, that could also be something we see how parking

[54:14] and how tight it is, and then ultimately the HOA and the owners making that decision.

[54:19] Certainly, they have the opportunity to do that, so I think it's something we definitely

[54:22] will take under a Boseman.

[54:24] Yeah, you could do it preemptively and prevent problems.

[54:27] You don't want one neighbor being tired and yelling at another.

[54:30] You're a part of that, right?

[54:31] Yeah.

[54:31] So, and then the last question is the most complex, but I'll start it out by asking,

[54:40] do you, in the LUDC section 3438 architectural detailing, they say under item B that

[54:49] multi-family buildings require what they call 360 degree architectural treatment,

[54:58] which means

[55:01] side elevations. We can pick them up on the renderings a bit. And the reason I'm asking

[55:08] is because some of those side elevations actually face the highway and this part of highway

[55:13] when 60 West is a visual gateway into Durango. And I want to make sure that there's no

[55:22] it says here under sea blank walls. No multi-family building elevations, you'll have an area

[55:28] uninterrupted blank wall with a dimension larger than 15 feet vertically and 12 feet horizontally.

[55:35] And I just I couldn't scale it from the renderings, but if it bears double checking.

[55:41] Yeah. Okay. Yes. And then the last question is, the biggest difference I noticed

[55:47] between the conceptual plan, which I absolutely loved, and this middle is the conceptual plan.

[55:56] You may recall submitting this rendering and it shows many different colors on the homes.

[56:05] And after driving through Denver and seeing these developments where I call it a sobriety

[56:13] test to find if you were to do it.

[56:17] I thought it was really excellent to change colors between homes.

[56:23] So even for visitors, you could tell them, oh, I'm in the blue house, you know, easier to find.

[56:29] And the other thing about it, again, being in the visual corridor is, you know, this is what we see.

[56:37] And I know color can be a matter of personal preference, but I'm just throwing that out as an idea to consider is that this, these are certainly more, how can I say,

[56:51] traditional home colors. Yeah. Where is the white and gray and black motif is more modern.

[56:57] Yeah, I think we'll look to refine the color palette to include a little bit more diversity.

[57:03] But still cohesion, I think I think we can achieve that. Yeah, this I felt head,

[57:09] could actually hear architectural detailing, you see the porch railings are alike and the

[57:15] the pitch roofs are alike. So I think there could be cohesion obtained through the design

[57:21] of the elements. Yeah. Okay. Um, that's all from me. Thank you.

[57:27] Mr. Abbott. I have a couple of questions. One is going back to the charging stations.

[57:33] How many are planned for this development for? As I saw it. Yes. And that's just on the south east section.

[57:42] There's none on the other side. There's two locations. Yeah. There's two locations.

[57:46] Two spaces and two locations. Okay. Thank you. That clarifies there.

[57:51] That probably also answers my next question, which had to do with any chance of solar power in those charging stations.

[58:00] I mean, the units will be built solar ready, but we won't be installing solar panels per say, but they will be ready for solar if a resident decides to or homeowner wants to put this on.

[58:11] I met the charging stations.

[58:13] Oh, we have not contemplated that about solar for the EV Chargers, that's something we've

[58:20] looked into yet.

[58:22] Just consideration perhaps and I appreciate the response concerning residential choice on

[58:27] solar.

[58:27] So thank you for that.

[58:29] The other has to do with, is there a planned space for loading and unloading transit from

[58:39] Gringo, transit service.

[58:41] The good question, not one, I don't have it.

[58:44] I mean, not sure where the closest stop would be.

[58:48] I would think to think it's at the trail.

[58:49] I think where the trail had is, where the trail connects to,

[58:52] would be the closest transit stop.

[58:54] And that currently is a stop.

[58:57] Leave.

[58:58] That's more low-ish.

[59:00] I know.

[59:01] I think that is, I think it is.

[59:03] And with the light and a creek trail,

[59:05] there will be a direct connect.

[59:06] more direct than going up the hill to the road and down.

[59:10] That's a consideration obviously. Okay.

[59:13] Thank you.

[59:14] Thank you.

[59:16] Commissioner Evans, do you have any questions for the applicant?

[59:21] No, I don't. This time. Thank you so much.

[59:26] I just have one question which is news from your presentation tonight.

[59:31] So, sounds like you're in discussions potentially with during a school district to potentially,

[59:36] essentially acquire these on behalf of their employees and this might be a

[59:43] question for staff that I just might need to clarify, but I guess does that

[59:47] change anything from your perspective in terms of the overall conditions

[59:51] being met with the city's donation of the parcel and those kinds of things?

[1:00:00] We've been working with Brian on the housing agreement and it's a comment plate that.

[1:00:07] I'll invite you up when it's time for staff. It's okay. We'll finish with the applicant first.

[1:00:12] Okay. Thanks.

[1:00:15] All right. So we'll all check in with staff on that fair enough.

[1:00:20] Commissioners, anything further for the applicant at this time before we let them relax for a moment?

[1:00:30] You can ask first. That works for me. Thank you very much.

[1:00:33] All right. Thank you all.

[1:00:36] All right.

[1:00:39] So, um, just to remind of you,

[1:00:41] don't mind if you were going to clarify in that housing item.

[1:00:44] I would love to go ahead and get that.

[1:00:47] Do you mind reading the question?

[1:00:49] What's that?

[1:00:49] Do you mind repeating the question?

[1:00:50] Because I was sure it.

[1:00:52] I guess in hearing about the fact that there in discussions with the school

[1:00:57] district about potentially this whole project going to the school district.

[1:01:01] how does that impact the city's support of the project in any way, shape or form, or any of the

[1:01:06] approval conditions that we've played out previously? And the answer may be none. I just would

[1:01:10] love to be educated. Sure. Yeah. For the record, I'm Brian Devine, Housing Policy and Planning

[1:01:14] Administrator for the City of Gringo. We are in, I would say, very final stage negotiations for

[1:01:20] a housing agreement. That was one of the conditions of approval of the conceptual development plan

[1:01:25] here was at the city enter into a housing agreement specifying essentially the final, not prices

[1:01:32] per se but target incomes and sort of final status of each of the proposed units.

[1:01:42] So some of that is dependent on approval of this development plan because it refers to the

[1:01:48] number of units and the different types of units in bedroom counts and things like that.

[1:01:52] So that agreement has not been fully executed, it does contemplate that some of the project

[1:01:57] may be sold to the school district for use as employee housing. I think it's unlikely that

[1:02:03] it would be the entirety of the project and the agreement does not contemplate that.

[1:02:08] Regardless, it will essentially be subject to finalization as part of the land conveyance

[1:02:15] for the project because we do need to have actually, we will have a separate action to convey

[1:02:19] the property council will need to approve that by ordinance. So we're in final stages of those

[1:02:24] negotiations, I think we're very close to finalizing the terms of that housing agreement.

[1:02:31] And, you know, if the school district does take action to purchase some of these units,

[1:02:36] the agreement does allow for that. And essentially, they will, they would be giving us a plan for

[1:02:42] how they intend to rent those. And again, those target incomes, like from their own workforce,

[1:02:47] would be occupying those, and our belief is it would continue to serve the purpose of the

[1:02:52] city's land donation, it would continue to serve the purpose of the twin-beautes,

[1:02:56] housing compliance agreement, and of our requests for proposals for the site and the proposal that

[1:03:01] elevation community land trust is submitted. We believe it's all consistent. Okay.

[1:03:06] If you all understand, I have a follow question, and then I'm happy to turn over others. So

[1:03:11] I think you answered this, and you're warning choice, but I want to make sure I understand it.

[1:03:15] So, during a school district, would rent those units, they would not be for sort of allocated

[1:03:21] sales specifically for professionals working for during the school district, they'd be owned

[1:03:26] by the school district and rented.

[1:03:29] That's my understanding, but those specifics of that sale would be best directed to the

[1:03:33] applicant.

[1:03:37] But yeah, so they would be subject to follow the same general covenants in terms of the affordability

[1:03:45] and things like that.

[1:03:46] We would have some details to work out because the, you know, the original plan here was for all of those to be owner occupied all 29 units to be owner occupied and that would technically not be the case if some of them were

[1:03:56] It wouldn't be the case not technically. Yeah, that's right. Just to be clear. I think we get a little too loose with how we choose to define some things so it is not the same definition.

[1:04:08] Um, employee occupied housing is not the same as owner occupied housing. That's certainly true. Great. Yeah.

[1:04:12] Think we should clear up at that for the record. Okay. That answers my questions, but I think commissioner Schwartz, he had a.

[1:04:19] Um, it's kind of in line with that, but also slightly different. Do these units count towards the city's fair share agreement?

[1:04:27] Uh, technically there will need to be a fair share agreement for this proposal.

[1:04:33] The manual allows for public private partnerships to have a simplified compliance process.

[1:04:38] That falls under that simplified process.

[1:04:41] So there will be a fair share agreement, but it will essentially encapsulate things that are already approved in that housing agreement.

[1:04:48] Okay, and to these units count towards the Prop 123 baseline commitment?

[1:04:54] We've been most of them will.

[1:04:55] currently those are dependent on the final income mix, but we believe most of them if not

[1:05:02] all of them will count towards pro quo and two, three filing commitments.

[1:05:06] And maybe this is more of a logistic question, but if this school district were to buy a certain number

[1:05:13] of these units, how do they buy them at 100% AMI or how does that work as far as do they

[1:05:25] have a process to approve employer owned housing units, basically they want to see the actual

[1:05:32] rents, the actual leases. So it would be the if those rents were affordable according to

[1:05:39] Prop 1, 2, 3 standards, then we could also count those units as far as the price of the units

[1:05:46] that the school district pays into this project. That would be a question for the applicant and not

[1:05:52] staff. Okay, thank you.

[1:05:56] This is a complicated partnership. I want to acknowledge that. There's, you know, the city,

[1:06:02] uh, twin-duits of Durango, elevation community land trust, and tributary development, are all part of negotiating these final agreements.

[1:06:10] So, um, there's, you know, there's certain questions that are best answered by the applicant. I can say from staff's perspective.

[1:06:17] There's two important things. One, the housing agreement will comply with the conditions of approval for the conceptual development plan.

[1:06:25] And of course preliminary development plan, one of the conditions, one of the criteria is that it would be consistent with the conceptual.

[1:06:32] So we're very close to finalizing that.

[1:06:34] And then the second piece is, you know, as far as consistency with the city's original request for proposals,

[1:06:41] or the city's original agreement of twinbutes.

[1:06:45] I'm happy to answer questions on those.

[1:06:46] That is not a criterion of approval for this preliminary development plan.

[1:06:50] Although I'm happy to answer your questions on it,

[1:06:52] we want you to be well informed about what the plan is here.

[1:06:59] Go ahead, Commissioner.

[1:07:00] Vice-chair Interim, I'm sorry.

[1:07:01] No worries.

[1:07:02] No worries.

[1:07:04] Mr. Divine, can you see any downside to asking the applicant

[1:07:12] that since there's so much city involvement,

[1:07:14] the city's a co-owner with of this project. Can you see any downside in asking for all 29 units

[1:07:23] to comply with Proposition 1, 2, 3? It's our goal to have as many comply as possible with Prop

[1:07:29] 1, 2, 3 is definitely our strategy, but as the partner in the project, we also need to make the

[1:07:34] project work financially and 29 units where almost all of them or most of them, complied with Prop 1,

[1:07:40] three is better than no units built on site at all from our perspective.

[1:07:45] Quite true.

[1:07:45] And that's always our razor, our knife edge to walk is how to get our community, especially

[1:07:54] our school teachers, desperately need affordable housing.

[1:07:59] In fact, the school district is often short of teachers because certain key teachers,

[1:08:04] like gym teacher, math teacher, because they hire people from out of town and they discover

[1:08:08] they can't live here. So we're always trying to, I guess, I would just like to reinforce, we're

[1:08:14] always trying to get the most number of affordable units. And in Proposition 1, 2, 3, and I understand

[1:08:22] we're on good in a good place as far as meeting our three-year obligation with the number of

[1:08:29] Prop 1, 2, 3 units we provide, the city of Durango, that are built. But yeah, I guess I'd like to just

[1:08:38] You already knew this, but reinforced to get as many affordable units as possible.

[1:08:43] Certainly our goal wouldn't be doing my job if we weren't.

[1:08:45] I will say two things about that.

[1:08:47] Number one, the original criteria for the selection of this proposal for elevation and

[1:08:51] tributaries original proposal was targeted at 70 to 120% AMI.

[1:08:56] So, if any of those units are not sold at 100% AMI, we as the city as a partner in the project

[1:09:02] would not support that if it goes beyond what was in that original proposal.

[1:09:06] And as you know, we do still have documented need for those income restricted units at 120%

[1:09:12] AMI and even higher.

[1:09:13] So, even if it's not prop 1, 2, 3 compliant would certainly fill documented need in the city.

[1:09:18] The second is that we are planning on filing a rural resort income based petition to actually change what AMI is qualified

[1:09:26] in Durango and probably in all of La Plata County.

[1:09:30] So we actually expect that we would get credit if some of those did need to be above 100% AMI.

[1:09:35] we think we get credit for all of them regardless. I just can't guarantee that right now since that hasn't been approved.

[1:09:44] Commissioner Frederickson. I do not know anything for Mr. Divine. I do have an additional

[1:09:49] question for the applicants. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[1:09:57] So under Proposition 1 2 3, can you help provide education to make sure we have this? So for rental units

[1:10:03] to count towards our 3% annual growth, they have to be at 60% AMI.

[1:10:06] That's correct.

[1:10:07] Is that correct?

[1:10:08] Yes, sir.

[1:10:08] So, if the school district buys a block of these, and they are two folks that are above 60%

[1:10:15] AMI, then all of those units do not count towards the annual growth for Proposition 1, 2, 3, obligations

[1:10:21] and funding.

[1:10:22] Subject to a future rural resort income based petition, that's correct.

[1:10:26] Which would provide up to what?

[1:10:29] We haven't finalized what that number will be, we're working through that with the state

[1:10:32] right now. But it's possible that we'll have an increase in both the rental and home ownership

[1:10:40] income limits or AMI limits for qualifying units. So again, this is all very dynamic. All these

[1:10:47] things are happening at the same time. But it is, it is our belief that this project is a

[1:10:54] key element of our compliance with our existing prop 1, 2, 3 filing commitment regardless of the

[1:11:02] district participates in the project in that way or not.

[1:11:06] The sense. I mean, yes, but the law is written, correct or new rental units to count

[1:11:12] towards our Proposition 123 obligations for growth to be able to get future funding.

[1:11:18] As it stands today, legally they have to be rented to someone at 60% of AMI. They do. Okay.

[1:11:25] So that is a risk that the city runs is if this exemption does not get approved, or for whatever reason,

[1:11:34] which I don't fault during those schools for doing this, it runs people above that,

[1:11:40] not a single one of those units could potentially count towards that three percent annual growth.

[1:11:44] Yes, that's possible, right?

[1:11:46] I mean, the laws of stands today with no exemptions that is the truth.

[1:11:49] Yes. Okay. So I want to make sure we all understand that and have that on record because it could potentially impact the situation negatively for all of us.

[1:12:01] That is true and I'll reiterate that the terms of that housing agreement are not a criterion of approval for tonight's preliminary development plan.

[1:12:10] I think it's important to state that.

[1:12:10] I think this is important educational material for us, Mr. Divine.

[1:12:14] So I'm asking the clarifying question.

[1:12:15] I'm sorry.

[1:12:16] I'm sorry.

[1:12:16] Believe me.

[1:12:17] Mr. Swartz.

[1:12:19] Kind of to maybe clarify a little bit more.

[1:12:21] If they are, this could be more of a question for Prop 1, 23 in general.

[1:12:26] But if they are sold to the school district at that 100% AMI doesn't that meet the qualifications

[1:12:32] for?

[1:12:33] Yeah.

[1:12:33] Good question.

[1:12:34] No.

[1:12:35] In that case, the state will look at the actual rents that the district charges their

[1:12:39] employees.

[1:12:39] Okay.

[1:12:40] So they wouldn't count the force seal at the 100% AMI, they would then look at the

[1:12:44] to make sure that that. Okay, thank you.

[1:12:51] I have no further clarifying questions, but do any of you before we move along?

[1:12:56] Yeah, Commissioner Evans, my apologies.

[1:12:58] Thank you.

[1:13:04] All right, your silence means nothing from Mr. Divine at this moment.

[1:13:06] I would ask the...

[1:13:09] Oh, Commissioner Evans, go ahead.

[1:13:13] Oh, okay.

[1:13:14] I do. I'm sorry.

[1:13:18] All right.

[1:13:20] So, I don't do we have any questions from Ms. Bernstein

[1:13:23] that we would like to address real quickly before I invite the applicant back up.

[1:13:29] Thanks, Mr. Vine.

[1:13:30] Thank you.

[1:13:31] And if I can invite the applicant to come back up really quickly.

[1:13:34] Commissioner Frederickson had a clarifying question.

[1:13:36] He wanted to ask you.

[1:13:37] I appreciate your time.

[1:13:38] This is directly addressing the site plan.

[1:13:43] Or tonight's discussion.

[1:13:44] The two right renderings are, can we say where we were?

[1:13:49] You're good.

[1:13:50] The two right renderings are

[1:13:55] the best way to put it is disingenuous in regards to how the site plan is actually going to take place in regards to the lack of storage sheds.

[1:14:04] The shown on the property of those sheds are not shown on there.

[1:14:07] They would be in front of the three white cars on the middle right of the bottom right one and then they would also be shown right on the middle left of the other one.

[1:14:16] That's my first statement. My second one is I'm not in studying this more thoroughly. I'm not a big fan of how the units at the far east of the property have been flipped.

[1:14:28] To where their accesses or as far away from the parking areas, they possibly could be, I mean humans are lazy creatures.

[1:14:37] Then they will use their backyard to walk and make the bedroom unit that will be a sliding door their front door.

[1:14:43] So we see those on the right there, the far right, the five units there.

[1:14:48] The two units that are the bottom that are the stack duplex units do face the parking lot, the top five, do not.

[1:14:55] Additionally, we have storage sheds that are facing each other on the...

[1:15:00] parking lot, that are seen pretty conspicuously from Highway 160. I do not want to hold up this project at all tonight, but I would greatly request that those storage units somehow be either incorporated into the units themselves.

[1:15:17] Or we saw a recent project from a GABA where they incorporated those storage units into the retainage, which there could be significant retainers that's happening on this project.

[1:15:26] And they could therefore be used, the rear wall could literally be the rear wall of storage units and then they're fully gone.

[1:15:32] We want this place to stand the test of time architecturally and we have, if we have a little 10 by 12 storage units.

[1:15:38] Salt and effort all over the place with these other buildings all staggered and salt and effort.

[1:15:43] It's going to look pretty shanty town pretty quickly.

[1:15:47] So I would just, as you guys were refining these, I know it's a value engineering process as well.

[1:15:52] but you're going to have to be incorporating the stairs onto the other units of those

[1:15:55] will be shifting back a little bit. The two bottom two-plex units. So just, yeah, I mean,

[1:16:03] please see that advice. We could those storage units get all of the move against that hillside

[1:16:08] and you have a buffer and other retainage for the units and agave it has some recent

[1:16:13] drawings that they've done on that with RANA as well. It would be much more attractive.

[1:16:18] That's the great.

[1:16:20] Yeah, I mean, the backyard is just small.

[1:16:21] The storage units just track them up a little bit.

[1:16:23] All right, and make the units face the parking area.

[1:16:26] I mean, let the backyard over there at the potential secondary water storage area

[1:16:31] at B, a play area, but not something you have to walk around all your neighbors units

[1:16:36] and around the sidewalk to get to back.

[1:16:38] Not only that, but it also saves you guys a ton of money and materials as far as not

[1:16:42] a ton, but a reasonable amount of money for pouring the sidewalks to wrap around all the

[1:16:46] way to the back back there if they're meeting.

[1:16:48] the curb and gutter system of the parking lot.

[1:16:51] In the units we'll have rear entries that will be accessible parking.

[1:16:55] So that's the intention there is that parking car you come in your back door.

[1:17:00] Most of those enter into a kitchen space where you would.

[1:17:03] So you wouldn't really have to be circulating around the entire building.

[1:17:07] And we kind of want that front porch feel where you have a shared kind of front yard.

[1:17:12] And there's eyes in that common area.

[1:17:14] I mean, I'm misunderstanding the comment. You were thinking of playing the front facing the parking.

[1:17:19] Well, that's how you have all of the units in the middle.

[1:17:22] You have all of them. Oh, no, you don't. You have them all facing. I see what you're doing.

[1:17:27] All of that. Yeah.

[1:17:28] The front porch is front that open space.

[1:17:30] Right.

[1:17:30] Like a common front yard.

[1:17:33] Right.

[1:17:33] That you have access off your parking through a rear end.

[1:17:38] Yeah.

[1:17:39] I hear what you're saying there.

[1:17:42] But the comment on the storage is on the storage that makes total sense and I think that we should look at integrating that into the back of the units or the size of the units or the hillside. I think there's a lot of options there that could be better than just a free standing little structure. Yeah.

[1:17:57] Yeah.

[1:18:00] Okay.

[1:18:00] That I'm important on those, but I hear what you're saying there. I can see what you're aiming for, but it's a little bit unusual to literally design something where the back door will be used as a front door.

[1:18:11] we've had success in other projects and that engaged area with the

[1:18:17] portures you know has been a plus so yeah on a piece of paper I can

[1:18:22] understand but I think in action where we've seen it in our projects it's

[1:18:25] really been a gathering place to the picture that Commissioner Hunter

[1:18:31] identified.

[1:18:37] So interviewing the four plans themselves then main level plan

[1:18:44] So you'll be inering the back door kind of where all the where that half bath is located.

[1:18:48] That's correct. Yes.

[1:18:51] Okay.

[1:18:56] And then what is that little room that's immediately adjacent to that half bath on the other

[1:19:00] Should of a hallway?

[1:19:05] Well, these that's like a mechanical or mud room kind of area.

[1:19:09] Okay.

[1:19:09] When you come in, you have a little space.

[1:19:12] Yep.

[1:19:13] Take your shoes off and you're kind of touched down spot.

[1:19:17] It's a tight space.

[1:19:19] I mean, I see that you're working with tight limitations.

[1:19:23] I can't say that I fully agree with you,

[1:19:26] but let's see what happens.

[1:19:32] I'd like to piggyback on to Commissioner Frederickson's comments

[1:19:37] and just say that certainly this rendering of the central space

[1:19:42] with the front porch is facing it is a wonderful concept.

[1:19:46] But I think I agree with him on those five North Eastern most units because the space there looking at is to the east and it's uphill toward the driveway.

[1:20:01] And I just like to, as you think about those five East units, consider, I think this doesn't happen enough, we think about how the resident is going to use their unit and we don't think about a visitor brand new to the project.

[1:20:17] And I would say that for those five Eastern units, it would be more, there's no reason for them to need to face eastward.

[1:20:26] for the visitor experience and I definitely agree with Commissioner Frederickson about getting those storage units more out of sight.

[1:20:36] And so if I'm visiting somebody, I'd like to, and there's some parts of the code it might only be for commercial where they say the front entrance should address the street.

[1:20:45] And it just makes more, it makes it easier to find instead of going up knocking on everybody's

[1:20:53] back door because they don't have their addresses out there.

[1:20:58] Yeah, I think one other thing maybe we should look at is just pedestrian circulation and

[1:21:02] how to better connect the sidewalk along the main street that runs east west to the sidewalk

[1:21:09] that leads to the front door because right now that's a little disconnected with the storm

[1:21:13] water pond. We do have some great constraints in that area that make it challenging, but better

[1:21:17] connectivity for that sidewalk, so that you could park on that parallel spot and know where

[1:21:22] to go, could help, but definitely hear your comment and something will take place.

[1:21:27] Like this flipping the five Eastern units, because I buy what you're saying about that beautiful

[1:21:34] common space in the center, but look at your three Western units there on the left side and

[1:21:41] They're easy to find because they're front entry faces the drive.

[1:21:49] One additional thing.

[1:21:52] There also might be some city codes out there that say that the curb and gutter and the sidewalk connection needs to happen because of the site circulation from the parking lot to the units.

[1:22:04] My need their own concrete access immediately off of the curb because the way that it's drawn now with the storage units there and without there being a sidewalk there.

[1:22:12] your force to circulate through the parking lot to get to the sidewalks that

[1:22:18] access the courtyards that you're at so just before you dive fully into it just

[1:22:24] know that intent there that that thing doesn't catch you off guard and then you

[1:22:27] like holy moly we got an extra 75 yards in mud in here and we know that's not

[1:22:32] cheap so

[1:22:36] I have one question but I'd ask Ms. Bernstein to provide an answer for a

[1:22:42] question first. Can you remind me from a process and point or maybe the entire commission?

[1:22:48] Obviously, assuming approval tonight of the plenary of all the plan and plan development

[1:22:54] zoning, what's the next step in the process here for this project in terms of what it will

[1:22:59] come back to us eventually, right? It would not. It would not. Yeah. So with this being the preliminary

[1:23:04] development plan, with a positive recommendation from you all tonight, it would go on to City Council

[1:23:10] three meetings associated with the ordinance for the zoning aspect, one meeting for the resolution for the preliminary development plan, and then the final development plan is, yeah, just a staff approval.

[1:23:27] Thank you. Okay and then so the housing agreement is in lock step before it will end up at city council

[1:23:42] then I assume is that a correct assumption? I believe the housing agreement will be finalized prior to

[1:23:50] the city council action because while the city manager's office can execute those agreements on

[1:23:55] half of city council. Yes, it should theoretically be approved before our project that utilizes

[1:24:00] those tools goes before city council. Can you say that again? I'm not sure. I'm just saying

[1:24:06] the agreement between the parties around how the affordability will work should be finalized

[1:24:14] before it is approved by city council from a process standpoint. Is that in actuality what

[1:24:19] the community and the commission could expect? It will be a two step process to encapsulate

[1:24:25] the final affordability mechanism. There will be the housing agreement that we've already discussed.

[1:24:30] Again, I believe that that will be finalized prior to the City Council's action on this project.

[1:24:34] There will also be a fair share agreement. I think this project is not exempt from fair share,

[1:24:39] as proposed, in which case the code specifies that fair share agreements are executed after

[1:24:44] final development plan and prior to building permits. Got it. Okay.

[1:24:49] And I think this is maybe just a comment for applicants and staff, which is I do, I am very supportive of the during the school district aggressively pursuing housing for their employees, but I would caution all of us to be aware of unintended consequences of that.

[1:25:07] And I know, again, we are likely on track to see much more than the 3% growth in affordability, but that depends on a lot of things where there are no shovels in the ground yet, and so I would just encourage the applicant and staff to make sure we consider that when working with the school district, please.

[1:25:27] Well said, and I will say we're, you know, ten plus or minus is the kind of unit sale we're talking about with nine hours. So it's certainly not all the units ECLT, they, they, they are very focused on this being a part of their broader portfolio. So yeah, I, I, again, I, I sound negative. I'm actually very supportive. I just want to make sure that we think about those pieces that could potentially harm the community as a whole.

[1:25:57] while trying to do good for it as well.

[1:26:00] So, all right, thank you very much.

[1:26:02] Anyone else have anything for staff

[1:26:04] for the applicant before we open public hearing?

[1:26:06] All right, thank you all very, very much.

[1:26:10] At this time, I will go ahead and open public hearing

[1:26:13] on Project PR2585, which is the Landry Creek

[1:26:16] Commons Plan Development.

[1:26:18] If you are joining us online, please go ahead

[1:26:20] and raise your hand and Mr. Murray will call on you

[1:26:22] and for those presence in chambers that might want to comment

[1:26:26] on this we will open public hearing to you next

[1:26:31] don't see any hands raised on cases taking

[1:26:36] them a moment I wouldn't invite anyone in person today who'd like to come in on this to go

[1:26:40] ahead and come on forward. All right. So you know one one last check online. No hands raised.

[1:26:49] Okay well with that I will close public comment on this project and I will bring it back to the

[1:26:55] commission for discussion or emotion if all of you are ready either way.

[1:27:07] It should be noted the

[1:27:09] If you do plan a recommended motion, there is one that does call out some specifics that need to be handled.

[1:27:18] It is on packet page 52 if you're interested in refreshing your memory.

[1:27:36] I just had a point of order, are we still in discussion, or are we now asking for a motion to then promote the discussion?

[1:27:44] I think if this is of sufficient complexity, we can entertain a motion to open discussion,

[1:27:51] or we could, or I'd be happy to entertain a motion, which would then allow for discussion

[1:27:56] on the motion.

[1:27:59] I think I haven't heard the, having heard all the discussion, I would go ahead and make

[1:28:05] a motion to recommend approval of light and a creek commons preliminary development plan,

[1:28:10] and plan development zoning with the finding that the proposal is consistent with the

[1:28:15] applicable review criteria in the land use and development code with the following conditions being

[1:28:22] met. The applicant to respond to or address all comments from Drango Fire and Rescue,

[1:28:28] engineering division, stormwater management, and major site plan review, and submit snow storage plan

[1:28:35] lighting plan. All future submittals by the applicant should be in conformance with the

[1:28:41] doctor's city standards regulations, plan goals, ordinances, building and fire codes,

[1:28:51] and all verbal and graphic representations of the applicants or their agents shall be deemed

[1:28:56] conditions of approval. Thank you, Commissioner Apec, do we have a second? All second?

[1:29:08] Thanks,

[1:29:09] of discussion. So last year Hunter, I will go ahead and bring open that up for you, please.

[1:29:15] Okay. Thank you. Am I allowed to ask clarification from staff during this?

[1:29:21] Okay. Certainly. So my noting condition number two, that's already in there, all future

[1:29:27] submittals by the African Shelby and conformance with adopted city standards,

[1:29:32] and would that include then LUDC section 3, 4, 3, 8 architectural detailing and the no blank walls.

[1:29:45] This section right here,

[1:29:51] that's part of the LUDC.

[1:29:54] Or should I make it, should I specifically note it since the material?

[1:30:00] We've seen today have not indicated compliance yet. With that, have not, you know, that, like they might comply, but then again, they might not go ahead.

[1:30:10] My hesitation there was that. I would be curious to look at the larger context of where that falls and that all you do.

[1:30:17] Oh, um, chapter three, lots building structures.

[1:30:22] So if it is in the code and does apply to this project, then they will have to conform with it.

[1:30:26] Okay, and would the trees shading asphalt area, would that also fall under LUDC standards?

[1:30:39] I,

[1:30:42] including it in that strip between the drive aisle and the pathway, I don't think there would anything that specifically touches on that.

[1:30:49] So that could be a possible additional condition of approval is to work through that.

[1:30:57] It could be to consider that.

[1:30:59] I would caution you against requiring it just, you know, because of the logistics of.

[1:31:06] Okay.

[1:31:06] So to consider, but it is a code requirement that have treaties shading a parking area.

[1:31:13] So, we're letting them off shading those parking areas that are not near this internal drive.

[1:31:24] And we're asking them instead to shade the internal drive.

[1:31:32] I mean, we would be if the commission approves.

[1:31:36] I'm a condition of approval.

[1:31:38] I agree with this.

[1:31:39] That we're letting them off the hook with anything they are required to meet their landscaping requirements

[1:31:43] and being compliant with W wildfire resiliency code.

[1:31:48] So, it's a matter of working out that.

[1:31:50] They can split.

[1:31:51] Which is the hard part.

[1:31:53] Yeah, they can split.

[1:31:55] They're first project where we're going to see those come together.

[1:32:01] And they are more than nine parking spaces.

[1:32:04] So, they, yeah.

[1:32:06] Okay, so we'll make, I'm going to propose a condition of approval on that.

[1:32:11] And then I'm not so worried about retention pond as an amenity and the assigned parking.

[1:32:20] I'm not worried about that.

[1:32:22] So, oh, and then just color considerations, consider being closer to the conceptual plans

[1:32:29] of the middle

[1:32:33] since throughout the staff report.

[1:32:36] It says that this project is very close, and that's the only way it's not close that I have

[1:32:43] noticed.

[1:32:47] Okay. Sure. I have a question as a point of order. Yeah. It just appears that we're now

[1:32:55] moving away from the motion and the second that are out there and I'm not clear in terms of

[1:33:01] yes, there being proposed any changes to that motion as it was submitted. Yes. I'm not clear on any

[1:33:10] So if I can clarify, so we can keep on place here.

[1:33:15] So, Commissioner Hunter, if you have an amendment to the motion,

[1:33:18] I would propose that you go ahead and make that at this moment.

[1:33:21] Okay. Thank you, Chair Scott.

[1:33:23] So, I would propose the following amendment to the motion,

[1:33:28] and trying to be as clear as possible.

[1:33:29] condition number 4 that the applicant, the applicant comply with LUDC 3438 architectural detailing,

[1:33:50] providing side elevations that comply with items B and C link walls, and that they consider

[1:33:59] maybe it needs to be a separate condition condition number five, they consider providing trees to

[1:34:07] shade the driveway between the driveway and the twin-viewed trail system and also that they

[1:34:17] consider following the conceptual plan more closely in terms of different colors for the

[1:34:24] different homes, and I think that's it on my side. Oh, and then consider, and Commissioner

[1:34:33] Fredrickson can correct me if he disagrees, consider flipping the orientation of the five

[1:34:40] Northeastern most units to face the parking.

[1:34:52] Yeah, I need clarification from staff. I don't

[1:34:55] think considerations can be a condition of approval. I understand, and I'm just need to ask

[1:35:01] for clarification. So I invite whoever wants to address that, whether it's torture

[1:35:04] Lopco or Mr. Murray. But I understand, and I apologize, I don't, it's the 3, 4,

[1:35:12] 3 design element, and I don't know this specific section. Sorry. I think that is very straightforward,

[1:35:20] potentially, to make sure that they comply, since no, nothing has been presented yet.

[1:35:24] But I think the other things are much more challenging. Mr. Murray or Dr. Lopco or Ms.

[1:35:28] Bernstein, I'm happy. I just, there's an amended motion on the table,

[1:35:31] that we needed to turn it if there's even a second.

[1:35:33] Yeah, just as a point of order, as I was understanding, there was an amendment to the motion

[1:35:40] that was offered by Vice Chair Hunter.

[1:35:46] That whole array that was presented in terms of an amendment is now in front of us, but there's

[1:35:54] no second to that particular amendment. And so if, in fact, it's not second of it would die

[1:36:02] as it stands, just as a point of order. I do not disagree. Is there a second of the motion?

[1:36:12] Okay.

[1:36:16] Commissioner Hunter, would you maybe like to try a slightly different motion?

[1:36:21] Sorry, Commissioner Fredericks and God. Or we dive deeper.

[1:36:29] I believe a lot of the concerns that you

[1:36:30] have Commissioner Hunter or address within the conditions of approval that are there because

[1:36:36] this is not a PD that's being presented. This is just something that has to align with the

[1:36:42] LUDC. So they are not allowed to not conform with the LUDC. They have to conform with the

[1:36:49] LUDC. If this is before it, if this were a PD, it would be a different situation. This is a PD.

[1:36:55] This is a PD.

[1:37:00] Okay, then. Next round. Here we go.

[1:37:05] I think to your point, commissioner,

[1:37:07] if I can mention it, then we're enough of staff to clear

[1:37:11] the illustrates that it, well, the applicant shall be in

[1:37:14] conformance with adopted city standard regulations,

[1:37:16] plan goals, ordinances, and building of fire codes, and is in the

[1:37:20] motion under discussion originally made by Commissioner

[1:37:22] So there is actual language in the motion for approval saying they will comply with the LEDs.

[1:37:31] So I think similar to why you were trying to show, but there is no specific exclusion.

[1:37:38] Historically, though, this would have been handled in a finding commission or CDC meeting in regards to what those conditions that will be excluded can be.

[1:37:48] the exclusions that they would have particularly from the LUDC.

[1:37:53] Those would be labeled on here. So at this point in time,

[1:37:58] I as much as anybody in this room want to see this thing move forward.

[1:38:04] But we're kind of

[1:38:06] playing the game of an expedited review process here with this one,

[1:38:10] because we're not playing by the rules that we've always played by in regards to

[1:38:14] But number two, and it entirely within staff's hands, in regards to what sort of things

[1:38:19] they had or beholden to in the LUDC and what sort of things they are not.

[1:38:24] That was something that was always discussed publicly in this room or Zoom when it was

[1:38:30] the COVID times about what was required and what was allowed to be exempt.

[1:38:34] I mean, we've seen numerous projects that had in the heightings the amount of exclusions that

[1:38:40] had from the LEDC, but we're not seeing them exposed to it here.

[1:38:45] That's all that I'd say.

[1:38:50] I don't know why I have a question.

[1:38:53] Given, well, I shouldn't get Commissioner Evans a chance.

[1:38:57] She has not had an opportunity.

[1:39:00] Yes.

[1:39:02] To me, if there's no exclusions listed, then everything is included.

[1:39:10] So that building in far codes and ordinances, all of them apply.

[1:39:16] And early on, we had discussions on whether to include considerations in additional conditions

[1:39:29] and early on, you know, this is two years ago, and we decided that it's not appropriate

[1:39:36] for conditions to be considerations.

[1:39:41] We can express them to the applicant, but not put them as a form of condition, but that's my memory.

[1:39:52] But since there's no exclusions at all in any of the application, I would read that as two would apply for all ordinances, building and barcodes, and everything else listed there.

[1:40:08] So, that's all I had to say. Thanks.

[1:40:11] Thank you, Commissioner Arvin.

[1:40:12] Commissioner Frederickson, I believe you have a motion you'd like to make.

[1:40:16] With that in mind and with the reaction I'm seeing from the applicant and the room in general,

[1:40:22] I would like to amend number two in the recommended motion to say all future submittals by the applicant,

[1:40:29] Shelby and conformance with the LUDC, adopted city standards, regulations,

[1:40:36] land goals, ordinance, and building and fire codes.

[1:40:41] We have a second on that motion.

[1:40:44] Also, I can put okay. I would like to suggest an interest of time that we move to a vote on that

[1:40:50] unless anyone really needs to discuss that amendment real quickly here.

[1:40:56] So I had just a quick comment. So we're not even though

[1:41:01] So the thing we're talking about, the difference between conceptual submittal and pre-lynnery

[1:41:07] plan, the biggest difference is the building colors.

[1:41:12] And as represented at the conceptual submittal, they have different building colors, whereas

[1:41:16] now in the pre-lynnery plan they don't.

[1:41:19] So I guess, even though that's not a standard in the LUDC, it is throughout the staff report

[1:41:26] that you want the preliminary plan to be in alignment with the conceptual plan.

[1:41:34] I'm going to go ahead and course characters here.

[1:41:36] Let's go ahead and vote on the motion.

[1:41:39] I think you have a valid point, but I think it's on a slightly different topic.

[1:41:45] Just one quick comment on the motion for us to contemplate quickly before we vote on it.

[1:41:53] I think as long as it's not restricting,

[1:41:58] It seems to me that it follows within everything we're going for here, follow all the rules,

[1:42:03] everything that we've read to the letter, it just clarifies explicitly that we're looking at the rules and rigs in the LUDC,

[1:42:11] whereas the amendment as written doesn't, though the overall motion does, so it's a little bit of redundancy to me,

[1:42:19] seems that we're not stepping on any toes, we're not closing off any pathways, just an extra

[1:42:27] bit of clarification. And so with that, I'm ready for us to vote on this. On Commissioner

[1:42:34] Frederickians motion, everybody else's.

[1:42:38] We'll be voting on in the amendment. Yeah, so we'll be voting on an amendment right now,

[1:42:41] that he can I just interject and ask commissioner Fredrickson. I apologize. I think I missed

[1:42:50] how you changed condition number two. I added conformance with the LUDC comma adopted

[1:43:00] city standards or omitting only.

[1:43:08] It says that this proposal is consistent.

[1:43:14] A applicable, what

[1:43:16] applicable mean. I mean, as that doesn't say all. Yeah, that is saying applicable review criteria in

[1:43:24] the land use and development codes. That would be the review criteria specifically for plan development,

[1:43:29] preliminary development plan.

[1:43:35] Mr. Chair, I go ahead and call the question in terms of this commission,

[1:43:40] and this commission only in terms of voting on this particular motion. All right. So,

[1:43:47] Commissioner Fredrickson has proposed an amendment to the motion which so which changes bullet number two to all features of

[1:43:54] Middles by the applicant. I'll be in conformance with the land use development code comma adopted city standards regulation

[1:44:00] Plan goals ordinance and building in fire codes and we have a second and we've had discussion Mr. Murray, would you please call the roll

[1:44:07] Correct on the amendment Commissioner Schwartz. Yes, Commissioner Stetz and Lee. Yes, Commissioner Fredrickson. Yes, Vice Chair Hunter. Yes

[1:44:16] Commissioner Evans? Yes. Chair Scott. Yes. So if that the recommended

[1:44:27] amendment to the motion passes unanimously and now we'll bring it back to the

[1:44:31] commission for any other discussion regarding this or if we are ready to move

[1:44:36] forward with the vote as stands.

[1:44:42] I just wanted to address Vice Chair Hunters

[1:44:45] concerns that I think the applicant noted in their presentation that they're being flexible about their

[1:44:50] colors of the buildings that they did seem to take note of that.

[1:44:54] They've heard our concerns in other regards to the project and have been open and willing.

[1:45:00] To modify things to make this more architecturally attractive, and I think it's a great project for the city. That's it.

[1:45:08] Yeah, bullet number three, all verbal and graphic representations. So, all right. So, I'm definitely going to have something for us to discuss which may or may not be an additional amendment.

[1:45:22] I'm similarly pleased with this plan and all of the,

[1:45:29] everything that we've discussed here seems really great,

[1:45:32] especially in my previous line of questioning with regards to low carbon zero carbon climate adaptation,

[1:45:42] which the applicant has voluntarily planned to carry out.

[1:45:48] And of course, I have no reason to believe that they're not going to do that, however, is that the kind of thing that is worth adding an amendment into this motion to ensure that is part of the plan, especially in light of the fact that this is a partnership with the city and I do think that we as a commission tend to share these goals and values.

[1:46:16] It would be great for these sorts of things to be codified, but there is nothing that I can find in the LUDC related to any of those infrastructure pieces that have been included in this plan.

[1:46:27] So that said, is that kind of thing that would make a good amendment for this?

[1:46:34] Commissioner Vger, we want to make the comment, but I would also

[1:46:39] Commissioner Sethonley, I think that is certainly an item that we should

[1:46:44] any Commissioner members should feel.

[1:46:47] They should bring forward for the types of things that I mentioned at the beginning

[1:46:50] of this meeting where we think there may be an opportunity within the LUDC for the

[1:46:55] city when they're partnering on projects to have some kind of requirement for that.

[1:46:59] that is a excellent topic for discussion and feedback to city council who has been

[1:47:06] direct staff in the event that they want to see those kinds of things incorporated into

[1:47:10] LUDC but those kinds of ideas, this is a great place for those to start in my perspective.

[1:47:16] So just that's my very quick personal comment, but Commissioner Frederickson also wanted to make

[1:47:20] one so I want to acknowledge him. Sorry. Well, let me just add, I don't feel comfortable making

[1:47:25] ad hoc rules on a project my project basis. So I would love to see the LUDC reflect

[1:47:33] these kinds of goals. But I would also be really excited to ensure that this project is forward

[1:47:42] as with those desires in mind. Well, if you're okay with it, I'll call on you when we get to number nine

[1:47:48] to verbalize some aspirational goals for the UDC, because I don't disagree with you.

[1:47:55] I understand.

[1:47:56] Commissioner Friday was in please go home.

[1:47:58] I just wanted to make it clear that the city's recently adopted building codes, the

[1:48:02] 2024 IECC codes and the 2024 IRC codes and the state's model energy code and the state's

[1:48:09] PV ready code.

[1:48:10] Directly address many of these concerns that you're talking about.

[1:48:14] Commissioner Stuts and Lee and I don't.

[1:48:16] I think that it's going to be hard enough to get these things built with those reasonably adopted codes and some sort of an affordable manner and

[1:48:24] I think that those

[1:48:27] codes are significant

[1:48:29] Changes that address exactly what you're talking about in regards to reducing carbon footprint, though they require a ton more concrete and a ton

[1:48:53] more

[1:48:53] Commissioners, I believe we might be ready to vote on this amended motion. All right. Mr. Murray. Yes. Would you please call the roll. Commissioner Schwartz. Yes.

[1:49:03] Commissioner Steadson Lee. Yes, Commissioner Frederickson. Yes, Vice Chair Hunter. Yes, Commissioner Epic. Yes, Commissioner Evans. Yes, and chair Scott. Yes. So with that project to five, eight, five,

[1:49:18] light and complete commons, PD, asses unanimously. Thank you all very much for your time.

[1:49:26] All right, we have we are

[1:49:28] The reason for the agenda, but in the interest of not having to call a break later, I am going to suggest a five minute recess for anyone that might need to use the restroom or grab a drink.

[1:57:48] We are back to touch late because there was a line for the restrooms that some folks had to wait a little bit.

[1:57:55] So thank you all for your patience, but we took slightly over our five minutes.

[1:57:59] It's just awkward to call a seven minute recess.

[1:58:01] So, at this time, I will open public hearing on item 7.4, which is the conditional use permit 25-3 all port vacation rental conditional use permit Mr. Michael, believe you have a presentation for us. Welcome.

[1:58:19] Yes. Thank you chair Scott. Thank you commissioners for being here this evening. I am here to present a conditional use permit application for the all port vacation rental.

[1:58:33] The topic is in alignment with the community strategic plan goal of innovative housing and economic development.

[1:58:42] Here's a context map of the subject property within the city and an aerial image of the.

[1:58:49] Thank you.

[1:58:59] Okay. Thank you for that course correction.

[1:59:06] As I was saying, we've got a context map of the subject property within the city and aerial image of the subject property and the residences on that property.

[1:59:18] And a bit of background on the property itself.

[1:59:21] It is just over 14,000 square feet in area.

[1:59:25] Zoning is EN2.

[1:59:28] The current land use is Duplex, residential Duplex.

[1:59:33] The residents that is under consideration

[1:59:36] tonight for the proposed vacation rental is 325 West Park

[1:59:40] Ave, there on the northeast side of the property.

[1:59:42] and the other residents 331 West Park Ave on the south west side of the property is the applicant's primary residence.

[1:59:53] Prior land use and building permit approvals for the dueplex use and its construction were approved.

[2:00:00] 2019, that is also when the applicant applied for the vacation rental permit waitlist.

[2:00:10] So just a little bit of detail about the review process. Vacation rentals are typically reviewed under limited use permit by staff.

[2:00:17] This is unique because of the presence of an existing vacation rental home at 371 West Park Ave and the LUDC Outlines additional review criteria that are applicable when a vacation rental use that is under consideration it would be the second vacation rental use on an individual street segment.

[2:00:39] And we will get into, in addition to the, oh, excuse me, I was going to say we will get into the additional review criteria on separate slides.

[2:00:51] But those include these three bullet points here stating that the vacation rental home must be the primary residence for the property owner.

[2:00:59] The vacation rental use must be part time and annual audits shall be submitted to verify that operations do not exceed the established part time limit.

[2:01:10] So just a some more background on relevant definitions to tonight's application, a street segment as defined in the code means a portion of the street which is located between two intersections or between an intersection and the end of a cold-to-sac or dead end.

[2:01:26] And this is that street segment on West Park Ave between West Third Ave and Alamo Street.

[2:01:33] Again, here's the subject property and the residents that is being where the vacation

[2:01:38] rentals being proposed. Here is the property that has the existing vacation rental permit.

[2:01:49] Duplex as defined in the LUDC means a building that contains two separate single-family dwelling units

[2:01:55] that do not share living areas. Duplexes maybe configured as side-by-side units that share a party wall.

[2:02:00] or as multi-story buildings in which one unit is located over the other.

[2:02:04] However, there is an additional provision in Section 2233 table 2233A that goes on to say as an alternative

[2:02:15] to attaching the duplex dwelling. As an alternative to attaching the duplex dwelling units,

[2:02:20] duplexes may be constructed as two single family detached buildings on a single lot.

[2:02:25] So that is the type of dueplex that the applicant was approved for and constructed back in 2019.

[2:02:34] They are fairly common in residential zones throughout the city.

[2:02:40] The additional term is part time vacation rental use.

[2:02:43] This is not defined in the LUDC.

[2:02:45] It's not codified.

[2:02:46] I know you mentioned in study session that it would be helpful to codify that

[2:02:51] for future considerations like this one.

[2:02:53] Um, but going back and doing some research on previous CUPs that were issued for second vacation rentals on an individual individual street segment.

[2:03:02] This part time vacation rental use was historically interpreted as not to exceed six months per calendar year.

[2:03:09] That is the vacation rental use not to exceed six months.

[2:03:17] So getting into the the LUP review criteria and analysis.

[2:03:21] Firstly, regarding density, the LEDC does have specific caps for the number of vacation rental

[2:03:29] permits that can be issued in both EN1 and EN2.

[2:03:33] There are currently 14 active vacation rental permits in EN2.

[2:03:37] So if this were approved, it would be the 15th, and it would be complying with the density

[2:03:43] and the caps that are established in EN2.

[2:03:46] Regarding occupancy, if approved, it would include a condition of approval that the

[2:03:52] max occupancy of this vacation rental would be six persons.

[2:03:55] This is a rived at through either of the two occupancy calculation criteria that the

[2:04:01] LUDC establishes either three people per parking space and this is requiring two spaces

[2:04:08] and providing two spaces that gets you to six people.

[2:04:12] And the two people per bedroom plus two people calculation.

[2:04:15] This is a two-bedroom home, plus the additional two, again, arrives at six people max occupancy for this proposed vacation rental use.

[2:04:24] Parking, as I just touched on, the LEDC requires two off-street spaces for the vacation rental use.

[2:04:30] And the applicant has met this requirement. There would be a condition of approval reflecting this.

[2:04:37] And there will also be a condition of approval outlining the applicant's responsibility as the stated local contact and property manager to manage the compliance with parking on site.

[2:04:53] Here's a photo of the driveway and the two residences here on the subject property just showing on the ground how parking would be achieved with one in the garage at 325.

[2:05:07] vehicle space immediately behind that and then space for two vehicles here on the right to serve the applicant's primary residence.

[2:05:19] As stated, the applicant has noted their intent to serve as the local contact and property manager for the proposed vacation rental use.

[2:05:26] And again, there would be a condition of approval included on the permit if approved outlining their responsibilities to serve in that capacity.

[2:05:34] There's also a provision stating that vacation rental permits are non-transferable, and this

[2:05:41] would, like, all vacation rental permits, be included as the condition of approval, and

[2:05:45] I did just want to note on that, that the language of the condition of approval has been

[2:05:53] modified in recognition of the property being legally owned by the applicant's family trust.

[2:05:58] So I just wanted to state for the record that the modified condition of approval regarding this and I believe it's condition number 13 on the staff report would be modified to this permit is granted solely to the applicant the all port for nonza family trust with Andrew all port acting as trustee and shall not be transferred to any other person or legal entity this vacation rental permit shell automatically terminate upon the sale of the property or transfer to another legal entity.

[2:06:28] Regarding the auditing of this permit termination, staff does conduct quarterly permit audits to see if properties with vacation rental permits have changed hands change ownership and if so they terminate those permits.

[2:06:49] Okay, getting into the specific CUP review criteria and analysis, the full LEDC language should be on the bottom of page two and top of page three under staff report if you'd like to refer to that.

[2:07:02] But essentially the criteria are as follows that the second vacation rental home on the individual street segment must be the primary residence for the property owner.

[2:07:13] I wanted to acknowledge here that a strict interpretation of this provision may lead one to question whether the applicant is meeting that requirement here.

[2:07:27] Staff have accepted a more flexible interpretation of this particular provision in the code for three reasons.

[2:07:36] One is that the code does not prohibit the R's from being permitted on dueplex lots.

[2:07:43] Two is that the primary residence of applicant is still located on site, so they are still there on site.

[2:07:53] And that the fact that they are still there on site could prove to be more beneficial when it comes to mitigating potential impacts of the vacation rental use.

[2:08:01] more beneficial than the alternative which that strict interpretation of the code would lead you to,

[2:08:07] which is the owner being absent during vacation rental uses. Staff feels that them being on site

[2:08:12] in a residence that is immediately next door could have benefits to mitigating those impacts.

[2:08:20] And three is that the applicant has volunteered a part-time usage rate that is less than other

[2:08:26] that are permit under the under these CUP criteria.

[2:08:30] They have proposed a vacation rental usage cap

[2:08:33] of 100 days per year as opposed to six months or 180 days

[2:08:39] that's present on other CUP's for vacation rental uses.

[2:08:42] When it is the second home on a street segment.

[2:08:52] Well, a comment, there have been six comments submitted

[2:08:55] related to this project, five in opposition, one in support.

[2:09:00] Some of those were included in the agenda packet,

[2:09:02] others that were received, I believe, after the 19th of January have been printed out and

[2:09:06] shared with you all hard copy

[2:09:13] findings in next steps.

[2:09:16] Staff find that the applicant's proposal does adequately meet both of the limited use and

[2:09:20] conditionally-use review criteria for vacation rental homes in the EN2 zone.

[2:09:25] If approved by you all this evening, the next steps would include an on-site inspection by the

[2:09:30] community development department building official and or the code compliance officer.

[2:09:33] And if that inspection is passed, then staff would issue the conditional use permit with the finalized conditions of approval as to be determined by you all this evening.

[2:09:51] Here is the list of alternative actions and staff's recommendation.

[2:09:56] And I would love to hear any questions you may have.

[2:09:59] I believe the applicant is also prepared to give some brief remarks after your questions for me.

[2:10:06] Thank you Mr. Michael.

[2:10:09] Any questions, commissioner Schwartz, are you going to start again?

[2:10:15] I have two things.

[2:10:17] One, how do you guys confirm primary residency?

[2:10:24] We use the county assessors data and the mailing address that is listed for the property owner and the county assessors.

[2:10:32] Okay, so as long as they're mailing address matches,

[2:10:35] their physical address, that counts as primary residence.

[2:10:38] Yes.

[2:10:39] Okay.

[2:10:40] And then to kind of, this isn't really, I guess kind of a question,

[2:10:44] but in relation to some of the public comment that we received,

[2:10:48] I just wanted to confirm that whether the owner is physically

[2:10:55] present or not, they are still required to be the responsible agent

[2:11:00] that is must respond to all complaints within a reasonable amount of time.

[2:11:07] That is correct, I think. Because it seemed like there were several, I guess maybe not issues,

[2:11:17] but concerns that the homeowner travels quite often, which I mean, we all love to travel, so I'm all

[2:11:25] about that. But I know that you also still have to be able to respond in time to your

[2:11:30] any complaints. I just wanted to make sure that that was on record that the responsible agent,

[2:11:35] whether they are physically present or not, does still have to respond.

[2:11:40] Yes, that is correct. The code language reads that the property manager shall be available 24 hours per day

[2:11:46] to ensure that the property is maintained and operated as required by the LUDC. And there is a proposed

[2:11:52] condition of approval, outlining that as one of their responsibilities as the local contact

[2:11:57] slash property manager for the proposed vacation rail use.

[2:12:01] Okay. Thank you.

[2:12:06] Missionary stats and leave. We'll just go down the line again. If that's all right.

[2:12:10] I have, I think, basically a definitional question brought up in one of these public comments.

[2:12:17] It's mentioned that you are not allowed to back out onto a public street from a commercial

[2:12:25] property? I presume that vacation rental is not considered a commercial property.

[2:12:31] I just had listed in the in the land use and development code. It is listed in the

[2:12:37] residential and I think transient overnight accommodations category of land uses,

[2:12:45] which is distinct from the commercial category of land uses.

[2:12:49] Come on,

[2:12:58] Mr. traffic.

[2:13:00] A question, this goes back to the study session as well, but understanding the two parking spaces for each of the duplex, each side of the duplex.

[2:13:14] Any concerns with that would be handled by enforcement outside of what the LUDC calls for, am I correct in that?

[2:13:27] Sorry, could you say the fact there's a concern over the parking that goes on relevant to this particular proposal.

[2:13:35] That's an enforcement issue outside of the regulation of the LUDC.

[2:13:43] I believe in this case because parking is listed as a responsibility of the local contact to enforce.

[2:13:51] It would first be managed by community development planning staff to address with the applicant directly.

[2:14:01] If it were related to illegal parking in the right of way, then that would fall under the code enforcement purview of Officer Parkley, I believe, with PD.

[2:14:13] But if it's related to parking on site, not being in conformance with what was approved as part of this conditional use permit,

[2:14:20] than that would be managed by staff with the applicant.

[2:14:26] Thank you.

[2:14:28] Commissioner Evans, do you have any questions for staff tonight?

[2:14:33] I do.

[2:14:35] Please go ahead.

[2:14:37] Mr. Michael, on the second unit,

[2:14:41] I can't tell from the drawings that were provided.

[2:14:45] I'm assuming this is too bedroom, too bathed.

[2:14:49] I calculated from the county site it's about 1,300, 1,400 square feet, can you?

[2:15:00] Confirm that? I believe that is all accurate. I would defer to the applicant for a more detailed knowledge of the details of the residents.

[2:15:11] Okay. And then did they just come to the top of the wait list? Is that why this has come before us now?

[2:15:20] I didn't hear all of that question, Commissioner Evans. Could you repeat it?

[2:15:27] Commissioner Evans, unfortunately, you're quite quiet in chamber tonight. If you can

[2:15:31] for lack of a better way to say it, just sort of yell into your microphone, it might be what you

[2:15:34] have to do. And I'm sorry for that.

[2:15:38] Okay, is that better?

[2:15:44] Did they just now get to the top of the wait list? Is that why we're

[2:15:49] hearing this now. We had to. Yes, that that is correct. That is the the lag time between

[2:15:56] the them applying for the wait list in 2019 and this application coming to staff now. They

[2:16:05] they patiently waited their turn. They have also provided some pretty valuable feedback to staff

[2:16:12] about how the wait list could be managed differently, perhaps more effectively, and they've

[2:16:20] been quite persistently respectful in their pursuit of this permit, and staff has been very

[2:16:25] appreciative of that. How many people are still on the wait list? I would have to double check

[2:16:35] it is longer for EN1. I would hazard a guess that it is around 20 weightless applicants for EN1

[2:16:44] and around 15 for EN2.

[2:16:52] Okay, thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you.

[2:16:58] Any other questions

[2:16:59] for staff before we end? I'd like to talk about this in the study session and I'd like to confirm

[2:17:09] especially with the way the last motion went is a safety concern is to put on the notice.

[2:17:18] I think it's a condition number just second here. There's a condition in the staff report

[2:17:23] about things to put on a notice that's posted inside the rental unit and I'd like to add to that

[2:17:32] that the city of Durango prohibits any fireworks

[2:17:37] except the handheld sparkler type.

[2:17:40] And this is a wildfire concern because people from out of town

[2:17:45] do not understand wildfire danger and may not be aware

[2:17:51] of a particularly dry time when we're at high fire risk.

[2:17:59] Is that permissible to add to that condition?

[2:18:03] even though it's not currently verbatim language in the code. It is a safety concern.

[2:18:10] I don't know that I can speak knowledgeable. If I can, come by share under. So I think so that's

[2:18:18] in article 2 to 2. It's specifically 2 to 4 of the LUDC because I reviewed this before we

[2:18:25] heard this tonight. And I think this is another item that these items are specifically codified in

[2:18:32] UDC as far as what's required on the notice. So I think in the event that we want something added to those notices.

[2:18:38] We need to bring that up under my newly proposed how we're going to use item eight or nine on the agenda.

[2:18:45] Because otherwise,

[2:18:47] Yeah, which is not appropriate.

[2:18:49] Okay, even though a safety concern,

[2:18:51] I mean, those are codified.

[2:18:53] It's in the LUDC, right?

[2:18:55] So we can't write code for specific project.

[2:18:57] We're held by the code.

[2:18:59] I thought I wanted the code to be changed.

[2:19:01] We need to work with staff to get the UDC code.

[2:19:05] Now, I am one commissioner, and I am happy to be out

[2:19:08] voted by my fellow commissioners,

[2:19:10] but that's just a perspective I would share.

[2:19:12] Okay, because those are all very, I can tell you,

[2:19:15] it's actually, it's item 12 required notices.

[2:19:19] Yeah, and I noticed it was quite thorough,

[2:19:21] but we have had a past incident last summer

[2:19:25] in Fastfinder Park, which is in that neighborhood,

[2:19:28] Where kids were setting off fireworks during a fire ban, and it was pretty dangerous because

[2:19:35] the mature tree canopy.

[2:19:44] Yeah.

[2:19:44] Commissioner's anything else?

[2:19:45] Okay.

[2:19:46] At this time, I would invite the applicant to go ahead and come on.

[2:19:50] Are they present?

[2:19:51] Sorry.

[2:19:51] Come on forward.

[2:19:52] I know you're sure yourself.

[2:19:58] Good evening.

[2:19:59] My name is Andrew Alpore.

[2:20:01] I've lived with my family at 331 West Park Avenue since 2015.

[2:20:07] In 2018, my wife and I began planning a free standing garage next to our house with an attached

[2:20:13] living space above it.

[2:20:15] Our goals in this project were to give us winter storage for our car, on office space and

[2:20:20] room for extended stays for our family to visit.

[2:20:23] We designed the new building as a duplex, rather than as an ADU, since we were well within

[2:20:29] the code's governing lock coverage.

[2:20:32] because the Duke Black says it's own utility connections, it has a separate address despite

[2:20:37] sitting on a shared lot with our house. When we completed the construction in 2019,

[2:20:43] we applied for a short-term rental permit, and we were added to the city's wait list.

[2:20:49] In the following six years, our guest house has had many nights of visitation by family and friends.

[2:20:58] To many, I don't know, the longest days have been, for nearly a month, we've never heard a complaint from any neighbor about noise or parking availability from our neighbors in those six years.

[2:21:11] Street parking on West Park F is typically plentiful.

[2:21:14] As the majority of homes there are owned by seasonal or occasional residents.

[2:21:19] I understand that this heightened process is the result of this being potentially the second

[2:21:24] shorter mental on our street segment of West Park F. So I want to give you the context of the

[2:21:30] other mental on the street, which has a similar history. It's owners built a garage with the

[2:21:35] attached living space adjacent to their 19th century home. She did not have garage. Their short-term

[2:21:42] mental is occupied around 50 days a year and they live full-time next door and service the property

[2:21:49] and energy. So likewise we live directly next to the proposed rental and we'll be able to

[2:21:54] monitor and respond to any issues immediately. I support the city's efforts to limit short-term

[2:22:00] rentals because it concerns about housing supply and because of concerns about neighborhood

[2:22:04] character, but I just wanted these facts to help give context to our application. Thank you.

[2:22:11] Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for our app?

[2:22:18] Commissioner.

[2:22:19] Commissioner Lee looks like.

[2:22:20] I do have a quick question. Have you considered long-term rental for the duplex as opposed to a vacation rental?

[2:22:28] Well, we would already be allowed to do long-term rentals.

[2:22:33] However, that would preclude having in-laws and friends and family visit.

[2:22:37] It's also not an option that my wife wants to pursue currently,

[2:22:43] so that pretty much is enough.

[2:22:49] Mr. Evans, it sounds like you have maybe had a question.

[2:22:52] I'll go ahead and maybe the floor.

[2:22:54] Yes, I just wondered if Mr. Allport would confirm it's a two-bedroom, two-bath home.

[2:23:03] Is that correct?

[2:23:05] That is correct. This is a two-bedroom, and I suppose it's a one and a half bath.

[2:23:16] That's all I have. Thank you.

[2:23:21] Thank you very much.

[2:23:26] Before I open, probably comment. I don't believe any commissioners

[2:23:30] Have any additional questions for staff?

[2:23:32] Does that correct?

[2:23:34] All right, so at this time, I will go ahead

[2:23:35] and open public comment on CUP25-3.

[2:23:42] Invite those joining online.

[2:23:44] Please go ahead and raise your hand

[2:23:45] and our moderator, Mr. Murray, will call on you

[2:23:48] when it is time as a reminder,

[2:23:51] the chat function is disabled for comments.

[2:23:54] And we'll invite those joining online

[2:23:55] to provide comments first.

[2:24:02] You sure to raise your hand if you'd like to make public comment.

[2:24:12] Don't see any hands raised at this time.

[2:24:15] Okay.

[2:24:16] Is there anyone in Chambers tonight who would like to make a comment on this matter?

[2:24:25] All right. I see nobody. One last time for the online photos.

[2:24:34] So no hands raised.

[2:24:35] All right.

[2:24:36] Well, with that, I will go ahead and close public comment and ring it back to the commission.

[2:24:40] I think we are ready for either discussion or emotion

[2:24:46] Amongst the commission because I don't think we've had any additional questions for staff at the applicant at this time is that correct?

[2:24:55] Mr. Chair, I'd like to move to approve the proposed conditional use permit for the all port vacation rental based on the findings stated in the staff report.

[2:25:05] And the following conditions, which I won't read because they're quite detailed and there are 17 of them as presented in the staff report.

[2:25:17] Is there a second for that?

[2:25:19] All second.

[2:25:21] And I have a friendly clarification, which is not an amendment to your motion, but I do want

[2:25:25] to call out that Mr. Michael pointed out that item number 13 doesn't need to change to reflect

[2:25:31] the property ownership, which for the record at this moment, I'm sorry I'm bringing it back

[2:25:36] up.

[2:25:37] I apologize is for the all-port for non-za family trust.

[2:25:42] Is that correct?

[2:25:43] Okay.

[2:25:44] Looking at the property cards and pretty sure I got it right, but I'm sorry if I missed pronounce anything.

[2:25:49] All right. I apologize. I just want to apply clarification on that.

[2:25:53] I'm assuming you would accept that as a friendly. Yes, I do accept that.

[2:26:01] Do we have any discussion on the motion or should we go ahead and vote?

[2:26:05] I have a little discussion that I figured kick it around with everybody here.

[2:26:13] My primary concern

[2:26:15] In terms of following all the rules and the codes that we have is the exception being made for the actual property being the primary residence.

[2:26:31] And I know we can't really look at the rules and compute too much motivation, but my hunch is that that idea was that somebody could live in their own house part time and then rented out part time.

[2:26:43] And so this being a duplex, with a flexible interpretation of the rules, my main concern

[2:26:53] with that is that going to open up a precedent, are we going to set a precedent for similar

[2:26:58] situations going forward?

[2:27:01] I think in this particular case, it seems reasonable and I buy staff's interpretation of

[2:27:09] the rules,

[2:27:13] but does it set us up? Does it put us on as a free slip? Question to the commission.

[2:27:19] I'll weigh in on that. I agree with staff's assessment that this is actually better than the rules.

[2:27:29] Normally, when a person rents out their house, they are by definition, far away and probably

[2:27:35] to far away to hear if they're any, you know, or to see if anyone's parking on the street.

[2:27:41] And so I accept staffs, how can we say recommendation that this is actually better than the normal

[2:27:52] rules? And also, in this case, being, you know, 100 days out of the year instead of, you know, 180.

[2:28:00] Yeah,

[2:28:05] I think that's, that's a fair consideration. I think my concern has more to do with the

[2:28:11] availability of housing.

[2:28:15] If every dueplex that is available theoretically for additional housing

[2:28:21] is interpreted under the same rules, as opposed to a live-in place that's housing for somebody

[2:28:30] part time and then they travel part time. As opposed to having an empty, although this is

[2:28:37] not going to be an empty duplex most of the time. That's the precedent I worry about is if that

[2:28:44] rule, if by approving this, we set a precedent for baking duplexes being considered part time

[2:28:58] vacation rentals going forward. That's the specific point that I'm thinking about.

[2:29:08] I understand where you're coming from, but I also think the fact that it takes six

[2:29:14] plus years to even make your way through the wait list. I mean if someone is really dedicated to

[2:29:21] having a short-term end on their willing to own their home for six plus years and still wait in

[2:29:26] in weight to be able and then agreed to only rent it for a hundred days out of 365 days a year.

[2:29:33] I think that that is I see where you're coming from and I do obviously believe that workforce

[2:29:37] housing in long-term rentals are a very needed part of this community, but I also understand that

[2:29:44] often short-term rentals can also be needed and if it's not going to be used as a long-term rental,

[2:29:53] it's almost better that it is not just sitting completely vacant.

[2:29:57] I mean we're still...

[2:30:00] Getting tax revenue from these as lodging stays, as opposed to just family rentals where you're not receiving any income or tax basis incentives from that.

[2:30:12] So I think that although it is maybe not fully incentivizing using duplexes as short-term rentals, I think that this is kind of a different case in that, but it is something to consider.

[2:30:28] I'd like to add to your thoughts, Commissioner Schwartz, about they do have a limit for the number of vacation rentals you can have in district and two, which is this is it, this is in, and I believe I'm trying to remember was it 15,

[2:30:48] So I hear the concern and share it about having enough workforce housing, but I think that's why the code already has that limit in there.

[2:31:00] And if I may just add something to commissioner stats and leaves concern regarding precedent setting.

[2:31:07] EN zones 3, 4, 5 and 6 do not allow vacation rentals period.

[2:31:14] So even under that hypothetical scenario, it would only be duplex lots that are in

[2:31:21] EN 1 and 2 that have gone through the weight list and have applied for an available permit

[2:31:27] after waiting through their turn on the weight list.

[2:31:30] There is in a case where it could apply to all duplexes in the city.

[2:31:39] Commissioner Evans, I believe you may have been speaking at one point I want to give you an opportunity to have any additional comments before we call the question on this item.

[2:31:48] Yes, I just wanted to point out.

[2:31:54] We did have, you know, five neighbors or people in the neighborhoods that were against that and I understand that.

[2:32:02] The compound specifically talks about neighbors changing concerns about affecting their neighborhoods.

[2:32:14] And even in the transient residential land use code, it talks about preventing impacts on residential neighborhoods posed by vacation rentals.

[2:32:26] And they will not alter the neighborhood in which they are located.

[2:32:30] And why I brought that up is I'm concerned about clustering vacation rentals on the same

[2:32:37] blockface,

[2:32:40] especially when you can rent one of these to six people in the unit.

[2:32:48] Because if you were renting that, or if you were living that in a normal two-bed one-and-a-half

[2:32:54] situation. You would not have six people staying in a home of that size. So I just wanted

[2:33:05] to bring that up. I really object to the six occupancy of six.

[2:33:16] So those were the points

[2:33:18] I was going to make.

[2:33:23] That's all thanks.

[2:33:26] Anything further commissioners to add commission. Just one. Nothing wasn't incorporated in anything that we've heard

[2:33:33] and

[2:33:34] concerning traffic reports

[2:33:37] on Park Avenue

[2:33:39] and that was related to some of the concerns by neighbors was in terms of

[2:33:44] traffic flow and

[2:33:46] the inclusion of

[2:33:49] the

[2:33:49] Artificial vericades that went up that restricted

[2:33:53] additional parking

[2:33:54] on park. And I would just suggest that perhaps in the future when we're involved in these

[2:34:02] that traffic studies in terms of current traffic loads on those residential streets might

[2:34:09] be in order as just part of the discussion

[2:34:16] on my comment.

[2:34:18] One last comment. And then let's move along.

[2:34:21] Okay. I read each of these letters carefully. And I believe the main concerns

[2:34:27] expressed in them are addressed by the conditions of approval, and so I'd just like to

[2:34:35] make that comment. The biggest concern was parking, and obviously that just means, you know,

[2:34:42] particular attention when the vacation rental is occupied that to make sure everybody understands

[2:34:49] don't park on the street. There's ample parking on the property.

[2:34:56] All right folks, Mr. Murray,

[2:34:57] Would you please call the roll?

[2:35:03] Yes. Commissioner

[2:35:05] Schwartz. Yes. Commissioner

[2:35:07] Stets and Lee. Yes. Commissioner

[2:35:09] Frederick's in. Yes.

[2:35:11] Vice chair hunter. Yes. Commissioner

[2:35:12] Epic. Yes. Commissioner Evans.

[2:35:15] No. And chair Scott. Yes.

[2:35:20] So if that, um, this CUP 25-3,

[2:35:24] all port vacation rental passes,

[2:35:27] but they vote of six to one.

[2:35:33] Mr. Allport, thanks for your patience,

[2:35:34] of all we waited through that larger project earlier.

[2:35:37] Sorry, you ended up spending so much here tonight with us,

[2:35:40] but thank you for your time.

[2:35:48] At this time, I will open public hearing on item 7.5,

[2:35:51] consideration of LUDC, text code amendments related

[2:35:54] to the Colorado wildfire resiliency code.

[2:35:59] And at this time, all the commission would

[2:36:00] invite Ms. Bernstein with the Community Development

[2:36:03] Department to present.

[2:36:09] Thanks for having me back up.

[2:36:37] All righty, this evening, we are tasked

[2:36:40] with considering proposed amendments to the Land Use and Development Code, based on the

[2:36:45] recently adopted Colorado wildfire resiliency code.

[2:36:56] This item fits into organizational stewardship within the strategic plan by mitigating

[2:37:02] environmental stressors by meeting or exceeding state standards.

[2:37:05] And

[2:37:08] the step this evening for you all is to conduct a public hearing and I guess I'm not

[2:37:17] in question.

[2:37:19] Conduct a public hearing and consider making a recommendation on the proposed amendments

[2:37:24] to city council.

[2:37:33] Pending a positive recommendation for me, all this would go on to city council and be read

[2:37:38] through the ordinance process, so it would be over the course of three meetings with the

[2:37:43] of having an effective date on April 1st.

[2:37:53] All right, a little bit of background on this item.

[2:37:55] The state of Colorado passed Senate Bill 23-166,

[2:38:01] which created the wildfire resiliency board

[2:38:03] and tasked this board with creating a model model

[2:38:06] wildfire resiliency code.

[2:38:09] At that time, they were also going to require municipalities

[2:38:12] to adopt that model code once it was created

[2:38:15] within three months of the board adopting it.

[2:38:20] In June 2025, the board did adopt the 2025 Colorado

[2:38:25] wildfire resiliency code, and they also changed the timeline

[2:38:29] and for municipalities to adopt from three months, the nine months.

[2:38:35] So the findings that came along with that from the state,

[2:38:41] really the reasoning behind this was that the state found that wildfires

[2:38:44] in Colorado are increasing in frequency and intensity.

[2:38:49] So this combined approach that's proposed in this model code of structure hardening and

[2:38:55] defensible space is necessary to reduce risk associated with wildfires.

[2:39:01] So these methods are intended to reduce structure loss, reduce the loss of financial investment,

[2:39:09] required to rebuild and the cost of insurance and problems related with under insurance.

[2:39:16] With the over arching goal of protecting housing stock, it's more expensive to rebuild than to

[2:39:22] protect what's existing.

[2:39:27] So the city of Durango adopted the 2025 wildfire resilience

[2:39:32] C code back in November with an effective date of January 1226 and an implementation and

[2:39:41] enforcement date beginning April 1st of this year.

[2:39:45] So this is explains the timeline that we're on with getting our land use and development code

[2:39:50] in line with the adopted ordinance that's already in place.

[2:39:56] So the building division within Comdev will be focused on the structure hardening aspects of

[2:40:02] required of this code. And these LUDC amendments are primarily focused on site and area requirements.

[2:40:11] And I do also want to recognize that planning staff has been working with the Headwater's

[2:40:15] Economics C-POP program, which is, I can never remember this acronym, the Colorado sorry,

[2:40:23] community planning assistance for wildfire program through Headwaters.

[2:40:27] for community planning assistance for wildfire.

[2:40:37] All right, so with this model code, the state adopted the wildfire intensity map,

[2:40:44] which includes classifications.

[2:40:47] So here, this is not the entirety of Incorporated City of Durango,

[2:40:51] but shows a snippet of where we have class one overlay

[2:40:57] and class two overlay, class two being split up between high intensity

[2:41:00] and moderate intensity.

[2:41:05] The model code identifies which standards are required in each class.

[2:41:11] All of the standards for class one are included in class two and then class two has additional

[2:41:15] standards.

[2:41:23] Regarding the defensible space and site-in-area requirements of this code,

[2:41:27] this image is just meant to show the structure ignition zones, zone one being between zero and five feet,

[2:41:35] zone two, five and 30 feet, and then zone three being beyond that, and just point of clarification.

[2:41:42] This shows what would apparently be a very large lot. These inter, these zones stop at

[2:41:49] property lines. So obviously, what a property owner would be responsible for.

[2:41:58] All right. So the proposed amendments in front of you all this evening are intended to update and

[2:42:04] insert references to the Colorado 2025 WRC as adopted by the City of Durango. We removed

[2:42:12] any code language that contradicts this current code and amended some language to less

[2:42:19] in confusion about the requirements, but really you'll read in the red lines, the amendments

[2:42:26] are really just pointing to the WRC as amended or as adopted by the City of Durango.

[2:42:32] Amendments are located in chapter 3, chapter 4, and chapter 7 of the Landison Development Code.

[2:42:44] The code outlines criteria for review of text amendments of itself.

[2:42:49] Staff finds that all of these require a criteria have been met.

[2:42:55] The explanation of these findings are outlined in the staff report.

[2:43:00] I'm happy to elaborate.

[2:43:07] And with that.

[2:43:09] Yes. We have not received any public comments on this item and staff does find that it does meet the required review criteria sports the strategic plan and complies with state mandates.

[2:43:23] So we do recommend that the CDC make recommended approval or recommendation of approval of these amendments this evening so that city council can move forward with their timeline.

[2:43:39] And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

[2:43:40] Thank you.

[2:43:42] We're going to reverse things. Commissioner Evans, you get to go first.

[2:43:51] I don't have any questions of staff.

[2:43:54] Thank you.

[2:43:55] Okay. Commissioner Abbott.

[2:43:57] Vice Chair Hunter.

[2:43:59] Yes, I have one question.

[2:44:02] It came up on a project earlier this evening.

[2:44:04] Lightenary Creek Commons.

[2:44:06] And I'm not finding it in the proposed tax amendments.

[2:44:10] There's a potential conflict between the shade trees required for parking.

[2:44:15] and the distance from the buildings and being as this kind of dense multi-family development

[2:44:22] is going to become even more common in Durango because of land prices. I'd like to recommend

[2:44:28] that if you know where it is and I'm just not seeing it fast enough but if not if you could double

[2:44:36] that that um potential conflict is resolved.

[2:44:47] Mr. Fredrickson.

[2:44:49] Nothing.

[2:44:49] Stats in the league. Commissioner Stats in the league.

[2:44:55] Commissioner Schwartz.

[2:44:57] I also have not.

[2:45:00] So thank you. So with that, I will open public hearing on this item in the event. I don't see anyone in chambers, so I will open it up to those online that might be joining us. Please go ahead and raise your hand and our moderator, Mr. Murray. We'll promote you to a panelist if you'd like to make any comment on this project.

[2:45:21] Go ahead and raise your hand if you'd like to speak.

[2:45:26] Don't see any hands raised.

[2:45:28] Okay. Well, then I am going to close public comment on this item. And I will bring it back to the commission if there if you guys are ready for a motion or any further discussion, I would welcome it.

[2:45:50] Sure. Go ahead.

[2:45:52] I'd like to go ahead and propose a motion. I would recommend approval of proposed amendments to a land use and development code with the findings at the amendments conform with the applicable LUDC review criteria.

[2:46:03] I'll see you at the time.

[2:46:05] Great.

[2:46:06] Any discussion before we call the question?

[2:46:10] All right. Mr. Murray, if you wouldn't mind.

[2:46:16] Commissioner Schwarz.

[2:46:18] Yes.

[2:46:18] Commissioner Steadson Lee.

[2:46:20] Yes.

[2:46:20] Commissioner Frederickson.

[2:46:21] Yes.

[2:46:22] Vice Chair Hunter.

[2:46:23] Yes.

[2:46:23] Commissioner Epic.

[2:46:24] Yes.

[2:46:25] Commissioner Evans.

[2:46:27] Yes.

[2:46:28] And Chair Scott.

[2:46:29] Yes.

[2:46:29] So with that, PR26-1 is recommended for approval unanimously.

[2:46:38] I don't know how that worked.

[2:46:39] City Council.

[2:46:40] Sorry.

[2:46:40] Thank you, Ms. Bernstein.

[2:46:41] Thank you all.

[2:46:43] All right.

[2:46:43] At this time, I will open by hearing on Project 7.6,

[2:46:47] which is consideration of LUDC text code amendments

[2:46:50] relating to fair share housing.

[2:46:53] At this time, the Commission will invite

[2:46:54] I believe Mr. Divine, you're going to present.

[2:46:57] housing policy and planning senior administrator to present.

[2:47:00] Welcome back.

[2:47:25] All right, good evening commissioners.

[2:47:27] Once again for the record, I'm Brian divine, I'm the city's housing policy and planning administrator.

[2:47:32] And we're going to be asking for your consideration of land use and development code text amendments regarding fair share housing.

[2:47:43] Here we go.

[2:47:48] These proposed text amendments align with our strategic plan goal for innovative housing and economic development.

[2:47:53] And we believe our key part of serving the city's vision of a multi-generational community,

[2:47:58] which is authentic diverse engaged driving and environmentally responsible.

[2:48:04] I'm going to start with a brief overview of the fair share program for the record.

[2:48:09] This also is found on page 112 of your packets.

[2:48:14] So fair share is an inclusionary zoning program that has existed in the city in one form or another since 2009.

[2:48:20] The program design from about 2009 to 2024 required most home ownership projects, development projects in the city to either include a percentage of their units as attainable housing or to pay what's called a fee in lieu into the city's housing innovation fund.

[2:48:47] For most of that time, the program design included a balance between generating units and generating revenue for the city's housing fund for other types of projects.

[2:48:59] And produced the records that I have, sure that it produced nine units in the time from 2009 to 2024.

[2:49:06] In 2024, this commission recommended and city council adopted major changes to the fair share housing program design,

[2:49:12] including to apply the program to rental developments for the first time as well as to explicitly promote what is called on-site construction of fair share homes.

[2:49:23] IE mixed-income developments where the affordable or attainable homes are included on-site.

[2:49:31] That program design also included creation of a new procedures manual which was completed in 2025.

[2:49:38] And staff have been reviewing the first development proposals over the past year or so

[2:49:42] to in compliance with the requirements of that 2024 version of the program.

[2:49:48] As we discussed, it's not unusual for when you make a major change to a major policy like fair share

[2:49:55] and then apply it to some real world situations that you find you have some things that need to be clarified.

[2:50:02] We have done as much as we can with the procedures manual to clarify and streamline things through procedure.

[2:50:09] We do believe that certain text amendments are necessary, which are before you for consideration tonight.

[2:50:16] And I bring this slide up in part to just re-emphasize that our proposed text amendments include no changes to the program design, the purpose statement, or the policy intent found in the existing article 5.4 of the LUDC.

[2:50:30] Just to talk briefly about what that program design is, I hesitated to put this slide in the presentation because of the potential to latch on to little details.

[2:50:40] It's a really interesting presentation from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority that talks about the housing continuum.

[2:50:47] I think this is kind of an intuitive concept that we all sort of understand on a basic level, which is that depending on your income level relative to the median income where you live.

[2:50:58] there are different types of housing products that are appropriate or targeted for your income level

[2:51:03] as well as that might require a different types of government support in some cases.

[2:51:10] The statistics that are on this slide, as well as the bars that you see at the top of the slide,

[2:51:15] are based on statewide data and come from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority.

[2:51:20] Obviously there are some local nuances in every place, no less in rural, resort communities like

[2:51:26] to Rango, but in general we think this is a pretty good description of the types of housing

[2:51:31] that governments can try through policy to adopt to have a functional housing market that

[2:51:36] serves the local workforce. Mr. Divine, one of the commissioners has a quick clarifying question

[2:51:42] I believe really quickly sorry to answer that. It has to do with using state methodology in terms

[2:51:47] of A and Y, which we know is sometimes not real relevant to what goes on in South West Colorado.

[2:51:54] So, is there any desire from staff or the city of Durango to look at those nuances and perhaps

[2:52:04] incorporate them in consideration in terms of actual AMI's relevant to the market here?

[2:52:11] In terms of a fair share text amendment or more generally?

[2:52:15] Yes, that is not before you today.

[2:52:18] In part because we don't think we have enough data to answer that question in a defensible

[2:52:22] way in a public setting.

[2:52:23] But we are continuing to collect additional data and working with our partners to insure that not only do we honor the original program design from 2024 that we also match the demonstrated needs in our housing market as opposed to the terminology that was adopted in 2024 or these definitions that come from the state.

[2:52:47] So that is not before you tonight, but it is an ongoing process.

[2:52:53] Mr. Divine thanks for indulging us. Please continue.

[2:52:56] I'm sorry about that. No, not a problem. I'm not bothered by it at all. Sometimes it's easier to clarify as we go.

[2:53:03] The fair share housing program design is designed to deliver units as part of either mixed income

[2:53:08] developments or

[2:53:10] sometimes exempt developments at a couple of different

[2:53:13] price points. So

[2:53:15] these are called affordability standards for the first four

[2:53:20] rental units at an average of 60% AMI or 80% AMI and

[2:53:26] at home ownership at either 80% or 100% AMI.

[2:53:30] And I should note those are averages.

[2:53:31] So we do see, we can see a fair share proposal

[2:53:33] that says, look, I want to do one unit at 90%

[2:53:36] and one at 110, and that is averaging

[2:53:39] to the affordability standard.

[2:53:41] As you're all well aware, there's also an exemption currently

[2:53:44] from the 2024 code language that projects

[2:53:48] where all of the homes are sold.

[2:53:50] With some criteria, some additional criteria sold,

[2:53:53] at a below 150% are exempt from further fair share requirements.

[2:53:58] And so that's why we've shown that on this graph as well.

[2:54:00] And that will become relevant for one of the proposed text amendments.

[2:54:06] So the changes are laid out in your packet.

[2:54:09] Again, beginning on page 113 for the staff report and page 117 for the actual proposed text.

[2:54:17] I'll just go through the key changes and then we'll quickly summarize the remaining changes.

[2:54:21] So amendment item number one in the attachment or in the exhibit is to explicitly apply fair share requirements to what are called mixed tenure developments.

[2:54:32] So the current requirement is that there is an exemption for projects that are, it's labeled as rental developments with eight or fewer units are exempt home ownership developments with eight or fewer units are exempt.

[2:54:46] There has been ambiguity about what happens if you have fewer than eight of each but more than eight overall.

[2:54:53] The proposed change number one resolves that ambiguity and favor of explicitly playing fair share to those developments.

[2:55:01] The second is to restate that 150% AMI exemption that we looked at in the previous slide.

[2:55:07] As this commission is well aware, this has promoted some confusion and makes it difficult to process

[2:55:14] land use development applications, permit applications that are proposing to be

[2:55:19] exempt under this standard.

[2:55:21] We wrestled with a couple of different ways to resolve that and make that more clear.

[2:55:26] What we believe is easiest by far is to just take that exemption language and restate it as a new affordability standard,

[2:55:34] which we're calling intermediate ownership affordability.

[2:55:36] So that requires amendments number one and number six to change that from an exemption to an affordability standard that functions the exact same way, but it's easier to process.

[2:55:49] Amendment item seven is used to ensure that those intermediate ownership proposals do not become eligible for density bonuses and fee offsets the way that our.

[2:56:01] moderate and deep affordability units are.

[2:56:05] So the intent here has been to resemble the existing exemption as closely as possible,

[2:56:11] while just making it easier to process those development applications.

[2:56:15] The third key change reflects the change in the program design from 2024.

[2:56:21] So again, one of the goals in 2024 was to through a variety of methods explicitly promote

[2:56:27] on-site construction of those mixed-income developments.

[2:56:32] And one of the ways that that was done

[2:56:33] is changing the calculation method for fees in loot.

[2:56:36] Fees in loot were previously calculated

[2:56:39] by measuring or estimating the gap between

[2:56:43] an affordable housing price and a market housing price

[2:56:47] and essentially requiring a calculation method

[2:56:51] based on that difference.

[2:56:53] In 2024, that method was changed

[2:56:55] to a total development cost method, which is considerably higher than the higher fee than the

[2:57:02] affordability gap method. When that change was made to, again, as a method to promote those

[2:57:08] on-site construction and discourage uses a fees-in-loop, the increment method, the method to revisit

[2:57:16] that calculation annually was not changed. We believe it is more appropriate to change that annually

[2:57:22] by changes in construction cost, rather than changes in median income, since it's no longer

[2:57:28] an income-based calculation, so a cost-based calculation.

[2:57:31] The proposed amendment item three achieves that, while maintaining flexibility for us to

[2:57:35] respond to other kinds of changes in the housing market.

[2:57:39] The remaining changes I would characterize as more administrative items two and five resolved

[2:57:45] certain discrepancies between different sections, as well as just some unclear language

[2:57:50] that remains from the 2024 amendments.

[2:57:53] Item four is intended to streamline

[2:57:55] standard fair share agreement approval processes.

[2:57:58] So again, as one of the ways to encourage

[2:58:00] on-site construction of fair share homes,

[2:58:04] the current program design allows for a standard

[2:58:07] fair share agreement involving on-site construction

[2:58:09] to be approved by staff, whereas fees in lieu

[2:58:12] and other compliance methods that are allowed

[2:58:14] must be approved by city council.

[2:58:17] What we see, the effect of that is

[2:58:19] a clustering of development proposals to, essentially, imagine a proposal where you get two and a

[2:58:28] half, you owe two and a half fair share units. Well, you can either provide three, we can't really

[2:58:33] take half of a fair share unit. So, you can either provide three, and you have implications to your

[2:58:38] financial performance there, or you can reduce the total unit count so you only have to provide two units.

[2:58:44] We're proposing, we would like to avoid that kind of clustering effect, and artificially

[2:58:50] capping the number of units that are included in these proposals.

[2:58:53] So we're proposing that fractional remainder fees in lieu, not be calculated differently,

[2:58:58] but just be considered part of that standard agreement process, and that may get us an extra

[2:59:03] unit here or there really at no cost of the city.

[2:59:07] Finally, amendment item 8 adds and updates, relevant definitions, some of which are needed

[2:59:12] for that intermediate ownership standard and others that I think simply were overlooked in 2024.

[2:59:22] You just saw this on your previous agenda item, but I will run through them.

[2:59:25] The review criteria for text amendments are that the proposal supports adopted planes

[2:59:30] and policies, this we believe is a very consistent with that since we're making an existing

[2:59:35] program simpler and more efficient, as well as just supporting the goals of the strategic

[2:59:40] plan and the comprehensive plan.

[2:59:43] I should say the analysis of these review criteria found on pages 115 and 116 of your packet.

[2:59:51] Criteria number two, proposed amendment is consisted with the purpose of the article being amended and there is no change to the purpose state.

[3:00:00] Or the policy and tent statement in Article 5.4. Third, the proposed amendment for the health safety and welfare of the community.

[3:00:07] Our analysis reflects back on the essential nature of the fair share housing as one of our strategies to meet the needs identified in the housing needs assessment.

[3:00:18] And as Commissioner Epics stated, there will need to be some further analysis of how the fair share program performs against data that we're getting in on how our housing market differs.

[3:00:29] from the statewide housing market.

[3:00:33] And then forth, the proposed amendment provides for community benefits.

[3:00:37] We do imagine that this will provide a signal to developers,

[3:00:41] how to get proposals like this in the door,

[3:00:44] and hopefully evaluated a little more quickly.

[3:00:47] And again, we find that the city continues to have documented

[3:00:50] need at all the price points supported by the Fisher Housing Program.

[3:00:55] So in short, we find that the proposal meets the all the applicable criteria.

[3:01:00] If you give us a positive recommendation, this would be adopted by City Council by

[3:01:05] ordinance. With this slide says effective date, this is the earliest possible effective

[3:01:11] date, just depending on how all those meetings go, as early as March 20th.

[3:01:18] I should say

[3:01:19] it's in your packet and looks like it's not in my slideshow. We received no public comments on

[3:01:24] proposal at the time of this hearing. And our recommended motion is in front of you and on page 116,

[3:01:34] we ask that you remove to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments,

[3:01:39] portions of articles 5473 of the LUDC related to Fisher Housing, with the finding that the

[3:01:43] proposal complies with the LUDC criteria for text amendments. And that is the end of my presentation,

[3:01:49] but I'm happy to take questions. Thanks Mr. Divine, just quick comment. I want to

[3:01:54] express my appreciation and gratitude towards you for your quick work on this as we

[3:01:58] identified some issues that came up and so I just want to say thank you for the record

[3:02:01] before we get to questions. With that, I will seed the Florida Mintholic Commissioners for questions

[3:02:07] of course first. Vice Chair Hunter, you get to start. Just do things totally out of order.

[3:02:12] Okay. I'll keep it quick. First of all, I'd like to thank you on PDF the packet page 1119

[3:02:20] for improving the affordability, the ongoing affordability to 30 years, and then on page 120,

[3:02:27] and I raised this at the study session, and I looked through the administrative procedure manual.

[3:02:34] And I didn't grant it, I had to do a really quick view, because I had a project online today, but I could not find in there.

[3:02:42] On page 120, it says referred to the procedural manual for the length of time that an intermediate ownership home needs to be having ongoing affordability.

[3:02:56] And I've looked through that admin procedural manual, can you tell us where that's found in what the length of time is?

[3:03:03] There's a very good reason. It's not in the procedure's manual because it has not been rewritten to account for these text amendments.

[3:03:09] That happens after the text amendments would be adopted.

[3:03:12] I can tell you it will be our intention to match the language that is in the Procedures

[3:03:16] Manual for that 150% AMI exemption, which is found at Section 8.9 of the current administrative

[3:03:25] Procedures Manual, which is absent compelling evidence, city will generally require agreements

[3:03:30] or covenants establishing exemption to be valid for no less than 7 years.

[3:03:34] So that section will need to be rewritten because it will no longer be an exemption, but

[3:03:38] our intention to do that. I did see that seven years one. Yeah, but I didn't see the words

[3:03:43] intermediate ownership. That is to it. And that's why not yet found in the procedure's manual.

[3:03:49] It, as I stated in one of my earlier slides, our intention to revise the procedure's manual

[3:03:53] annually, probably in the spring and response to the updated area income data and construction

[3:04:00] cost data that we get around that time. So we will need to rewrite the procedure's manual to account

[3:04:05] for these text amendments, but we'd likely be doing it in that time for him anyway.

[3:04:09] Okay, thank you. My last comments are just some little clarifications, suggestions on the

[3:04:17] packet page 118 item B near the top of that page. It says calculate the fee shall be derived,

[3:04:27] and I would recommend leaving the word by in there by the is crossed out, but the sense doesn't

[3:04:35] make sense unless you have the word buy in there, b-y.

[3:04:39] And then the bottom of this page,

[3:04:41] let's get the right section for you.

[3:04:46] Let's see, lower than rather than beyond.

[3:04:50] Okay, so amendment item five, section five, four, four, two.

[3:04:55] What is it?

[3:04:55] The fourth line, one, two, three, fourth line down.

[3:05:00] Let's see, it says,

[3:05:02] Um, reduce prices of fair share homes to or beyond the maximum amounts allowed by this article and um, they're crossing out to a lower price.

[3:05:14] To me as a layperson reading the manual, it would be clear to me if instead of saying the word beyond say lower than.

[3:05:24] Because, you know, we are talking about price and and so lower than is a little bit clearer.

[3:05:30] That's all my comments.

[3:05:34] Certainly from staff's perspective, we would welcome those amendments by motion.

[3:05:40] The first one that you mentioned at the top of 118 is obviously just an oversight.

[3:05:44] And then on the bottom of 118, yeah, I think we tried four or five different words out where we ended up with beyond.

[3:05:51] So we'd be happy to change that if the commission would like.

[3:05:53] But I do think that would need to be made by motion and not as a comment.

[3:05:58] You would need the motion to include the recommendation for those changes.

[3:06:04] We'll need to, we'll need to make.

[3:06:07] So if you, Commissioner, if you look at.

[3:06:12] I apologize.

[3:06:14] I have to scroll back through my packet here.

[3:06:18] So a near alternative actions in the packet, which staff kindly provided on page 1116.

[3:06:23] we can amend the proposed LUDC tax amendments and recommend approval.

[3:06:27] So we can make that as either part of the original motion to recommend approval or as an amendment to the original motion.

[3:06:33] Yeah, I think practically speaking it's the same effect whether you recommend approval and add almost like a condition of approval.

[3:06:39] It would be with the following change to the text or to, as you stated, amend and then recommend approval of what's been amended.

[3:06:46] Practically speaking, I think those are the same for you there.

[3:06:49] I don't think so.

[3:06:50] No, okay.

[3:06:51] All right.

[3:06:52] Commissioner projects and Commissioner sets them like.

[3:07:00] Commissioner Swords.

[3:07:02] Okay.

[3:07:05] Commissioner epic.

[3:07:12] Okay.

[3:07:13] Commissioner Evans.

[3:07:15] From the sky.

[3:07:18] Nothing.

[3:07:19] Thank you.

[3:07:21] Okay.

[3:07:22] I also have nothing further for staff.

[3:07:24] So at this time, we'll go ahead and open up public comment on this project.

[3:07:28] I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

[3:07:29] We'll go ahead and open up public comments on this project.

[3:07:31] Thanks.

[3:07:35] All right.

[3:07:36] For those joining online, our moderator, who is Mr. Murray, will call on you if you're interested in speaking about this.

[3:07:42] You can raise your hand on teams.

[3:07:45] And if there's anyone present in chambers tonight who would like to comment on this project, we didn't actually come on forward.

[3:07:53] There are currently no hands raised.

[3:07:55] Okay.

[3:07:56] On that note, I will close public comments, seeing no takers either online or in person.

[3:08:02] And I will bring it back to the commission and it sounds like we have some potential small language changes to propose.

[3:08:14] Are you prepared to make a motion and then verbalize those changes at the same time? Okay. All right. If not, we'll do it in the minute.

[3:08:20] The chair. I'll try this.

[3:08:21] I

[3:08:25] would like to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to portions of article

[3:08:32] 5-4 and 7-3 of the land use and development code with the following text amendments

[3:08:41] on page 1, pdf page 1, t1, 18, item b near the top, leave the word by in the text after

[3:08:50] calculate the fee, at the bottom of the same page,

[3:08:54] suggesting lower than rather than the word beyond.

[3:08:58] Since it will be clear, because it's a price,

[3:09:01] and then related to fair share housing with the finding

[3:09:05] that the proposal complies with the LUDC criteria

[3:09:08] for text amendments.

[3:09:11] Wonderful, don't do we have a second.

[3:09:18] All second.

[3:09:20] Is there any discussion of the motion that the commission

[3:09:22] which is to, I see Commissioner Stathen Lee might have some.

[3:09:27] Well, I actually prefer the word beyond myself.

[3:09:34] So as I've read through it, so just at the risk of being a patent

[3:09:43] as I read it over and over again,

[3:09:48] anyway.

[3:09:49] So I,

[3:09:58] Commissioner Stathen Lee,

[3:09:59] Maybe as the rest of the sentence reads,

[3:10:01] that's where the beyond makes more sense to you?

[3:10:07] Well, if we're lowering to the maximum amounts,

[3:10:15] that doesn't make semantic sense to me,

[3:10:18] I think we're going beyond the maximum in reduction.

[3:10:25] So there's a maximum of reduction,

[3:10:28] and we're going beyond that, as opposed to lowering

[3:10:33] lowering

[3:10:40] seed my time to read it a few more times.

[3:10:46] Mr. Chairman, if I may.

[3:10:47] Go ahead.

[3:10:49] From a practical level, most of this will be reflected in guidance in the Administrative

[3:10:52] Procedures Manual.

[3:10:55] So I would perhaps advise the Commission not to dwell on the on-diverses lower than too much.

[3:11:03] So I think practically speaking developers generally look to our Procedures Manual for,

[3:11:07] how do I submit that proposal?

[3:11:08] how do I account for this? So I do think regardless of the chosen language, we'll be able to account for it pretty easily and procedure.

[3:11:19] Any further discussion of the motion?

[3:11:23] I'm sure I pick.

[3:11:27] I'm just kidding. I changed my mind.

[3:11:29] I just.

[3:11:31] Well,

[3:11:33] No.

[3:11:36] So she, she made the amendment on the front end.

[3:11:39] So they're, it's, it's amended. She made amendment on the front end.

[3:11:43] Yes.

[3:11:47] You had a comment by shareholder.

[3:11:48] Well, I just, in rereading it, you know, we are crossing out to a lower price, which was really clear.

[3:11:55] And that's why it just beyond could mean above and beyond.

[3:12:06] I think it's a great semantic debate, but it seems like it's maybe not super important.

[3:12:14] I believe it's the little of the commission to call the question, Mr. Murray.

[3:12:18] Let's go ahead and do that.

[3:12:21] Commissioner Schwartz. Yes. Commissioner Stetson Lee. Yes. Commissioner Frederick's in. Yes.

[3:12:28] Vice Chair Hunter. Yes. Commissioner Epic. Yes. Commissioner Evans. Yes.

[3:12:33] Chair Scott. Yes. With that, let's see that is I apologize on the project in front of.

[3:12:39] But the these tax amendments to the fair share path unanimously. Thank you all.

[3:12:44] We are 2588. Thank you, Mr. Devon. I appreciate you, really.

[3:12:50] Okay.

[3:12:52] Now I will move us into item eight. As a reminder, these items are general opportunity for staff to provide updates to the commission of a various administrative items or to provide to seek feedback about ongoing arching projects.

[3:13:08] We have one review and comment, we have review and comment tonight for the upcoming three

[3:13:14] springs on Mentory School and I believe Mr. Murray, you are presenting on staff's

[3:13:21] behalf and a reminder to the commission review and comment is an opportunity to provide

[3:13:28] some feedback, but it is not an approval of the project as school districts do not require

[3:13:34] are approval. They go through the state process. Yes, chair is a point of order. The comment

[3:13:42] I made earlier concerning this particular agenda item. For me, it's important that that

[3:13:50] come before the presentation in terms of this commission agreeing that the interior of the

[3:13:59] is not necessary for presentation based on the discussion that I had at the study session.

[3:14:07] Yeah, and I totally appreciate that. I do want to point out that it's been distributed in the

[3:14:13] packet and has been shown by the school district that public meetings outside of this discussion.

[3:14:21] So these are not new to the public view.

[3:14:26] I hear you and I guess I would look to the rest of the

[3:14:28] commissioners on their perspective. I don't disagree with the point you raise. They're just not sure it. I think that

[3:14:35] Cheney has left that bottle quite some time ago.

[3:14:39] Or Mr. Murray, if you have the ability to change your presentation to skip over those more quickly.

[3:14:44] Well, what I can add is it's the applicant's presentation.

[3:14:48] We can defer to their background on what is appropriate in the record and I can speak to that in a second.

[3:14:55] Good evening commissioners Daniel Murray

[3:15:00] I'm presenting this item for introducing the applicant from Reynolds Ash, Lauren Davis. The question

[3:15:07] I learned to think about as we kick this off, is is it acceptable to be releasing floor plans into the

[3:15:15] public domain, concerns around that information and how it could be used in the negative manner?

[3:15:22] I'll say that the proposal before you this evening is the Deringol School District's plan to build

[3:15:28] new elementary school at three springs. It's a parcel that was created when three springs

[3:15:33] was ultimately annexed and the development agreement set aside up to a 40 acre parcel.

[3:15:38] It's actually 37.5 acres. This subdivision for a lot split. You actually saw a back

[3:15:44] in September to create parcel A. This subdivision is currently underway. You approve the subdivision.

[3:15:51] It's very close to being recorded and then the land transfer takes place. The applicant can

[3:15:55] speak to the timing. Staff was on site, even as recent as today, meeting with neighbors about

[3:16:01] what's coming as the pin flags are starting to show up and it's becoming quite real.

[3:16:06] So, pursuant to statute, the requirement is for schools to notify a planning commission as

[3:16:11] a says or community development commission you are of the proposal to develop and such that you

[3:16:17] review and comment. That is the extent of it. It was indicated earlier. This is largely a

[3:16:24] to provide feedback to the development and design team about the proposal, I've put in the

[3:16:30] bottom of your memo some suggestions that you may provide back to the applicant with respect

[3:16:34] to dark skies, landscaping, being compliant with non-functional turf, as well as adding

[3:16:39] tree islands to a large parking lot and considerations for while playing the applicant is prepared

[3:16:45] to now speak to their design process. I'll turn it over.

[3:16:56] I'm Lauren Davis with Reynolds Ashen Associates

[3:16:59] an architect and planner there.

[3:17:01] We are just the local associate architect.

[3:17:04] I will say the architect is RTA out of Colorado Springs.

[3:17:09] And we might have Ken Greg on the call.

[3:17:13] So he might chime in if we want to get into the weeds on anything.

[3:17:20] But yeah, this project started about a year ago in the spring of 2025.

[3:17:24] We've gone through a long process involving the district, Jacobs is the owner's rep, and then we had a series of design advisory group meetings.

[3:17:35] So we went through that on Miller, on the DHSCIC,

[3:17:40] just getting involvement from staff, from principals, etc.

[3:17:43] Everyone who's going to be involved in this project.

[3:17:47] And then we've also met with city a few times, and then the three springs DRB, obviously Tim Zink, the GRBP, all of those guys have been important in these conversations and just understanding where we're heading.

[3:18:02] So, the school that you're seeing, it's tucked to the northeast corner of three springs.

[3:18:09] The overall footprint is about 68,500 square feet.

[3:18:13] It's a single story elementary school designed to fit about 500 students.

[3:18:19] So, obviously, right now we're not going to need that, but it's intended to meet growth in this area.

[3:18:26] About 40 acres, the overall objective of this project and it really came from the district,

[3:18:33] from staff, et cetera, is to take advantage of the landscape.

[3:18:37] This is a very unique site obviously.

[3:18:39] It's kind of in the woods and that's been the inspiration for the project.

[3:18:43] I think Karen was very much motivated by some of the national parks.

[3:18:47] And there's opportunities here and precedents that RTA brought to the table with other elementary

[3:18:55] schools who really took advantage of their setting.

[3:18:58] And we're very much in the woods, respecting nature and kind of that became part of the curriculum

[3:19:04] in the day-to-day experience of the kiddos.

[3:19:09] So that has been an objective with this project, and that is one of the reasons why RTA decided

[3:19:15] to tuck this to that part of the site.

[3:19:18] It really feels a little bit more separated.

[3:19:20] Has a buffer with three springs with Wilson Gulch.

[3:19:24] Long term, Wilson Gulch will be a fairly heavily

[3:19:27] trafficked thoroughfare coming through there.

[3:19:31] Plus, there's some pretty steady grade across this site.

[3:19:35] So the way we position the school,

[3:19:37] it is sort of up on a perch.

[3:19:38] And really we'll have some nice views

[3:19:40] looking back into three springs.

[3:19:42] But then also back to that open space,

[3:19:44] which we're pretty excited about.

[3:19:46] And I will say I live in three springs.

[3:19:48] So it's very fun to be a part of this project.

[3:19:51] I think we have met with the community.

[3:19:53] Everyone is very excited about this coming online, obviously.

[3:19:59] So the school itself, let me flip through here.

[3:20:05] This is a enlarged site plan.

[3:20:07] DHM is our landscape architect,

[3:20:09] and they've done a fantastic job

[3:20:11] to of working this building into the site.

[3:20:14] You'll see there's kind of three sections

[3:20:16] to this school. The front section has some of the unique programming, so the gym, the admin,

[3:20:25] some of the other, the cafeteria, et cetera. And then the other two blocks that you'll see

[3:20:29] moving to the north, those are the pods for the kids classrooms. The way we've located this building

[3:20:37] is we've, everyone's familiar with the spur-line trailhead. So there's kind of that existing scar

[3:20:44] that artifact of the circle that used to be there. We're tucking the parking down into that

[3:20:51] open space in the circle. And it actually acts to kind of helps reduce the impact the

[3:21:00] visuals of the parking lot. And then the school is going to be a little bit elevated. And so

[3:21:05] we wanted to preserve some of those trails. We wanted to preserve that old spur with some of the

[3:21:12] all railroad ties in the rock, that's all part of the site design, bike trails, etc. that will

[3:21:19] lead to the building. And then playgrounds, the main kids playground is to the east. And then we

[3:21:27] have on the left, there's a small preschool playground. And this school, obviously it has pre-school

[3:21:32] through fifth grade, just in case you didn't know. And then there's two connectors from the school

[3:21:38] that go back to three springs.

[3:21:40] So again, the original spur line is one bike trail

[3:21:44] and pedestrian path that will lead to the school.

[3:21:46] And then there's a second one that comes off

[3:21:48] of prospector back to the east.

[3:21:50] So a lot of bike trails, pedestrian connectivity to the school.

[3:21:54] And then the school itself is elevated up there

[3:21:56] on the northeast part of the site.

[3:22:00] In terms of landscaping, in grading and drainage,

[3:22:04] we're meeting all of the cities requirements

[3:22:06] and expectations for that.

[3:22:07] We're meeting three springs design guidelines and regulations for that as well.

[3:22:13] We're also meeting wildfire resiliency codes, all that good stuff.

[3:22:18] And I think the district also is pretty sensitive.

[3:22:21] You know, they don't want to surround this with trees, and then have to maintain it.

[3:22:24] Again, trying to be mindful of maintenance, but also just the existing kind of ecosystems out here.

[3:22:32] And broader needs such as wildfire.

[3:22:36] I'm just as special as you might be moving on from this and I have a quick question on this slide that's just for

[3:22:42] admit a little bit of personal interest in curiosity.

[3:22:46] So, I noticed on this side plan there's a future community garden potentially listed.

[3:22:51] And so, is the general idea there that potentially expanding this oil lab partnership that has been pretty successful?

[3:22:59] Do you have any idea or concept on that?

[3:23:01] I think at this time, there's no intent to expand that here.

[3:23:06] I think the one at Riverview has been really successful,

[3:23:10] and they've invested a lot there.

[3:23:12] So at this time, I think this might be its own kind of, you know,

[3:23:16] four, three springs garden.

[3:23:18] But we'll see.

[3:23:19] Great.

[3:23:20] Thanks.

[3:23:20] I totally appreciate that.

[3:23:22] Again, pencil data is a future.

[3:23:23] So I just curious.

[3:23:26] Mr. Chair, if I could ask a question,

[3:23:28] And this may not, I realize you can't make any major changes at this late date, because you're getting approval from the state, which I know is hard, I've done it, there's schools, but I see here, and I applaud the connection to nature, but then in locating the school in the wooded part of the site, and then having to comply with the wildfire resiliency code, how many existing trees are they taking out?

[3:23:58] And are they replacing those with new trees further from the building?

[3:24:03] Actually, we've been fairly successful.

[3:24:06] Most of what's out there, it's sort of the pinion pine,

[3:24:10] Juniper woodland.

[3:24:13] There's a lot of small shrubs,

[3:24:14] but I don't know that we're taking away a large amount of large caliper trees.

[3:24:20] And the center area is fairly open

[3:24:24] that the parking is situated in.

[3:24:27] There are a few that we're having to take off on the Northwest corner, but I feel like they've done a good job of

[3:24:35] Okay, so I can see where those would be contradictory goals, you know, you're trying to locate next to nature, but then our new wildfire resiliency, you have to cut

[3:24:46] Yeah, and I will comment students learn better at studies of shown, they learn better if they're connected to nature

[3:24:53] I think biophilia just integrating nature in this project has been huge and not just from the outside,

[3:25:00] but through the interiors in terms of material selection colors, et cetera.

[3:25:08] Obviously with this, we've met all the emergency vehicle specs for fire, for emergency access,

[3:25:16] sprinkling the bilgrain fire hydrants, et cetera. We're buffering as well. So I'm going to go back

[3:25:22] outside.

[3:25:26] Oh, go on around way here. Um, so we are buffering the project as well. And if you

[3:25:33] could see on the far east side, the right of the school, there is a 30 foot strip. And part of

[3:25:41] this came through the conversations with three springs in the district in the city, but we wanted to

[3:25:49] provide a little bit of a buffer from the property owners to the east, but then also it's related

[3:25:53] to trail access. So this is one way that we are going to still allow those connections to the

[3:26:01] north and the rest of the spiraling. So you'll see that little strip on the right. And then

[3:26:07] everything to the left, we're also preserving a majority of the existing spiraling trail. So I know

[3:26:14] that's kind of sacred to the community. Everyone loves the trails out there. We're still having

[3:26:20] conversations about where exactly people will park and then how, you know, what, what

[3:26:26] hours of use or how that gets shared. But I do think it's something that we've, we've been

[3:26:31] able to, you know, design the project so we can still have that amenity. So I think that's a nice

[3:26:37] feature of this as well. So at least short-term midterm, all of those trails still exist. And then

[3:26:43] obviously long-term, three springs has other plans for village two and everything to the north,

[3:26:49] but that's, I don't have that crystal wall.

[3:26:56] Moving on, is it the elevations?

[3:26:59] So again, I think you'll find that there's a nice scale

[3:27:02] to this school.

[3:27:04] The top image is the front elevations,

[3:27:06] so that will project back to three springs.

[3:27:09] In terms of materials, we're using a stacked stone, metal panel.

[3:27:14] There'll be steel elements, standing,

[3:27:16] see metal roof and then there's some fiber cement board panels. So those are the primary materials.

[3:27:25] There's a nice low sloped roof that goes around the school around those classroom pods

[3:27:32] and that actually creates a porch around all the classrooms. So that's been a nice

[3:27:39] a nice feature, all those classrooms kind of have access to the exterior.

[3:27:47] And this shows an elevation of the classroom pods.

[3:27:53] And then you can see kind of a, this is a very general floor plan.

[3:27:55] I know we don't want to say on those, but it shows kind of the view of those classrooms back

[3:28:00] out to the open space and then some vignettes of the interior.

[3:28:11] And I'll kind of skip over this.

[3:28:14] This is some of the civil grading and drainage.

[3:28:19] I don't know if anyone has any specific question, will this.

[3:28:24] SET is our civil engineer.

[3:28:27] And obviously, they've worked through all of the engineering for the site,

[3:28:33] feeling with all the runoff coming from beyond and then what comes into our site.

[3:28:38] We have wetlands and that all carries through through the rest of three springs.

[3:28:59] And I think the building elevations drafted up.

[3:29:08] This day of this before, if the commission has any questions, I know we've interrupted you.

[3:29:12] I'm sorry, but just if you're, I'm sorry.

[3:29:14] I don't remember the name of your colleague that's joining us online.

[3:29:16] But if I would invite them to kind of if he would like to speak and invite him to join us.

[3:29:22] Yeah, well, thanks for having us on Ken Greg on my principal RTA Architects.

[3:29:26] And we're sure happy that Lawrence been able to work with us on this project.

[3:29:31] She brings a great perspective from Durango.

[3:29:33] We're super honored to have worked with Durango public schools on this.

[3:29:39] I would say that one of the big things that we talked about from the beginning in Lauren kind of talked about this was this idea that this building really fit into the landscape and really connected to the natural landscape.

[3:29:52] And this idea of being able to extend the classroom outside the building was

[3:30:00] It was really important and it was a concept that was really strong from the beginning and the idea that this creates a layer of space to the outdoors.

[3:30:10] And so we feel these these portraits are really strong elements not only to help create a horizontal feeling with the building and setting down into the landscape, but also creating space for students to learn outside the classroom.

[3:30:27] This idea that the building nestles into the landscape and that you can see beyond is something

[3:30:34] that we felt was really important.

[3:30:35] And so you can see the long slow slope grooves that really kind of drive out into the landscape

[3:30:42] with something that we felt was important.

[3:30:46] It's also really important to create those connections back to the neighborhoods and as

[3:30:51] was speaking taken advantage of that spur-line trial was something that we really wanted to

[3:30:57] emphasize and leverage on on this project so it's going to become a really awesome pedestrian connection

[3:31:04] but this this project is a little bit different for us just because of the of the unique

[3:31:11] nature of the site and so we're really excited about where the project's going and in the concepts

[3:31:18] that the school district brings in terms of their educational curriculum. We created a building over

[3:31:26] north of Karas Springs called the school in the woods and so some of those concepts we've

[3:31:31] actually discussed. With the faculty and staff, they're in the range of about how this building

[3:31:36] could function operationally from an education in curriculum standpoint. It's pretty exciting.

[3:31:43] there's incredible opportunity. The idea of inside outside this is something that, you know,

[3:31:51] we're really excited about

[3:31:56] any, any other, any questions for us?

[3:32:00] Mr. Brader, please go ahead.

[3:32:03] Thanks for that, Ken. I think that it is a very attractive Paris-style

[3:32:08] Esk building that one concern that I have just because I have kids in elementary school and

[3:32:16] They write their bikes every day is that those bike racks

[3:32:18] sort of like 400 feet away from the front door.

[3:32:22] Oh, on this project.

[3:32:25] Yes, the project that we're reviewing right now,

[3:32:27] you can see where it's marked on DHM site plan right there,

[3:32:30] measuring it out, based upon the scale of the parking lot,

[3:32:33] puts it at about 370 to 400 feet from the front door

[3:32:37] and many of our other elementary schools

[3:32:39] and town those bike racks are like 50 feet.

[3:32:43] So, that would be a fairly simple change where a biking oriented community, this is set literally in a, or now I understand it will be developed, but it's set within a fully bike oriented zone.

[3:32:57] I mean, just getting those racks at a location that's more usable for small kids would be just add that much more to the building, but thanks for your presentation.

[3:33:09] I think that's a good point, a lot of elementary schools we try to get those bike racks as close to the admin as we can, so there's always eyes on them.

[3:33:18] That may not be as big a problem here, considering the remote nature, but yeah, we want to make sure they have direct access to the entry of the building.

[3:33:27] I think that's good input.

[3:33:31] Vice chair, I'm dirty, do you have something to add?

[3:33:32] I did, unless somebody else.

[3:33:34] Okay. Um, it is a beautiful design and I'm really grateful you're incorporating nature into

[3:33:41] the education process. Um, I'd like to ask, um, being that the project sits up on a hill,

[3:33:49] is there any thought to following the dark sky ordinance, um, because it will be more visible

[3:33:56] being up high. Right. Um, we intend to comply with all those requirements. We're meeting, um,

[3:34:04] the three spring spec for some of the like the light ballards and the poll lights. And I will say

[3:34:11] that long entry drive, that will not be illuminated. I think we're just

[3:34:17] cutting it kind of right around the parking and obviously anything required for egress and

[3:34:21] an ADA. So I think those biking trails, et cetera, I mean those will be

[3:34:33] That's true. And of course, I'm sure RTA knows that you have to egress to a public way.

[3:34:42] So you might have to have some minimal foot candles on that driveway.

[3:34:47] And then the other question I had, I think, was, oh yes, if we could please go back to the previous slide, the one that was a closer up of the thank you.

[3:35:00] Is there any thought to comments that I made on a previous project tonight is the heat island effect can be exacerbated by an unshated parking lot?

[3:35:13] So if you're intending to use Black asphalt, which is the least expensive material, are you considering complying with the tree, tree shading the parking lot part of the city's land use code?

[3:35:30] Can you want to speak to that?

[3:35:33] Well, I was just going to speak to it in terms of and Lauren alluded to it earlier, you know,

[3:35:40] the district in terms of maintenance.

[3:35:42] We are looking to try to create a tree path at the center to kind of guide the pedestrians up to the center,

[3:35:51] the building to kind of control access to the to the entry.

[3:35:54] And as you can see, we do have islands in all of those locations that would be planted.

[3:36:00] We're still having discussions about the exact number of trees and what type of trees we want to make sure

[3:36:07] that we're putting in trees that are native to this area and have the best chance of surviving.

[3:36:13] I know a lot of schools, you know, you have an island that has a tree and the tree dies and it doesn't get replaced.

[3:36:19] We want to make sure that we're putting plants in these, these areas that they would have the best opportunity to, you know, to make it and thrive here.

[3:36:30] I would say that we are going to shade part of it but, you know, you can see, you know, it's still a pretty big lot there for a school.

[3:36:41] And of course, you know, there's the concerns about plowing snow and all of that.

[3:36:45] So we kind of ride that that fine line of trying to create a parking area that's you know it's got some landscaping and you know some vision you know it's a little more visually pleasant but we do we do have to you know balance balance those needs the district needs in the and the landscaping understood and there's also the done functional turf needs because of water conservation.

[3:37:13] So I do, um, just personally really like that, um,

[3:37:20] colonate of trees leading up to the entry. I think that's a wonderful, um,

[3:37:24] definition for the main entry. And I think if, if you're familiar with three springs,

[3:37:29] kind of the image at the bottom right, if you've been out on the trail out there,

[3:37:33] there's some really nice, um, landscape kind of floodways where they've used the flat rock,

[3:37:40] and then you have all the the cat tails and some different plantings, we're bringing that up

[3:37:45] into our site. And so that promenade leads to another outdoor learning classroom. So that same

[3:37:51] language will be implemented there. And I think it'll be a nice place for for students.

[3:37:59] Mr. Patrick, hi. Well, it relates to an earlier discussion this evening. That is, um,

[3:38:05] are there any considerations for the use of solar in this project and also charging stations,

[3:38:10] particularly for faculty staff. Yes. So we have to meet the state requirements as well. So we have

[3:38:19] some EV charging stations that will go in immediately and be, you know, ready with the building.

[3:38:25] Then there's also future EV that's planned and sort of ruffed in for other locations in the parking lot.

[3:38:32] And then we have also designed for everything to be PV ready. They've identified areas on the roof

[3:38:40] for solar panels, and then we've done all the counts to sort of understand what we can provide.

[3:38:46] And yep, we've we've we've checked those boxes and we're going for green gloves.

[3:38:51] So as part of the districts, sustainability goals obviously, they want to provide certification for this.

[3:38:57] So we're working through all of the requirements and going through a series of points.

[3:39:05] And if you acquire a certain number of points, then you can capture that, basically that certification.

[3:39:13] So this will be Green Gloves approved.

[3:39:16] We think we're heading in the right direction.

[3:39:18] But PV is one of those points.

[3:39:21] And yep.

[3:39:24] I'm sure I haven't done anything for you.

[3:39:29] No, but I really like the way it looks.

[3:39:33] I don't know.

[3:39:34] Thank you.

[3:39:35] Yeah, my last comment, which is just a very quick one because we were I talked about it as I do think that doing as much as the design team can to avoid light spill from the campus would be greatly appreciated in that neighborhood just because

[3:39:52] three springs has done an exemplary job of being a very very dark neighborhood at night. In fact, it's probably the darkest in the city of Duranglo. I would argue in many ways at night. And so I applaud you guys for trying to make sure and do that.

[3:40:05] and I think everything you do will be greatly appreciate

[3:40:07] by your neighbors.

[3:40:08] So, with that, I think that's actually all,

[3:40:12] because we don't have public comment on this

[3:40:14] since it's a, or do we,

[3:40:17] I don't actually know, I should have gotten prepared.

[3:40:20] You know, if anyone online would like to provide

[3:40:21] public comment, we would go ahead and invite you now.

[3:40:26] Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:40:28] I'm sorry.

[3:40:29] I'll just piggyback a little bit on what Commissioner

[3:40:32] epic was in a big dare I say sprawling but in a very good way single story building is a

[3:40:41] veritable solar farm opportunity we lovely to see a whole lot of PV up there and I don't know

[3:40:49] what the green gloves means but I'll return to an old soft mind but which is you know zero

[3:40:58] carbon, heating and all the infrastructure inside buildings with no requirements of fossil fuels

[3:41:05] outside of what's the dwindling generation going into our grid would be wonderful to see

[3:41:12] yeah heat pumps and induction stoves in the kitchen and not have to even put natural gas plumbing

[3:41:21] and to begin with, would be great.

[3:41:24] Well, this, yeah, go ahead.

[3:41:26] Go ahead.

[3:41:27] Oh, we just get to say, yeah, that was one of the goals.

[3:41:30] This building won't even have a gas line that runs out to it.

[3:41:33] It's going to be all electric heat pumps.

[3:41:35] There's going to be two large electric heat pumps.

[3:41:40] And the rest of the system, basically, it's a four-pipe heating and cooling system that

[3:41:46] comes off of those heat pumps.

[3:41:48] So the building will be all electric, including all of the

[3:41:51] all of the appliances and equipment in the kitchen. So it's one of the first, it's

[3:41:58] probably, it is the first project that I've ever had that does not have a cast line that

[3:42:03] runs to it.

[3:42:06] And I will say one other comment, they actually had some activities where RTA

[3:42:12] engaged the students and so the students have some ownership in this, they helped pick out some of

[3:42:17] equipment, there's been some fun activities that have come along with this. I think the mascot

[3:42:23] and school colors are still to be determined, but I think this will kind of help guide that

[3:42:30] conversation to.

[3:42:34] Missioners, anything else? And did anyone online raise their hand, Mr. Murray?

[3:42:38] There are no hands raised. All right. Well, we open to public comment. We closed it while providing

[3:42:43] commentary. Good work. Everyone. Thank you. Very much, we're taking the time to come.

[3:42:48] on to us, we greatly appreciate it.

[3:42:50] No, we're excited.

[3:42:50] Thank you, guys.

[3:42:51] Thank you.

[3:42:52] Thanks, everybody.

[3:42:57] OK.

[3:42:58] I know we're getting near the end of the evening,

[3:43:01] but I believe Mr. Murray, you had something you

[3:43:03] want to bring up under item nine reports and comments.

[3:43:09] Just a few quick items here for you.

[3:43:12] At your February meeting, although I

[3:43:13] don't want to pre-empt commissioner ethics or discussion

[3:43:16] of the one-year terms, it would

[3:43:18] be the normal time to elect a chair and vice chair.

[3:43:21] So I will have that on your February agenda.

[3:43:26] I can note for the sake of discussion

[3:43:28] in terms that are ending not until May of 2027

[3:43:32] would be Commissioner Evans and Vice Chair Hunter.

[3:43:36] That's a year from this coming May.

[3:43:40] You received your packet a few days earlier.

[3:43:43] We're gonna stick with the Friday before the study sessions

[3:43:45] so we're trying to get them out to you

[3:43:47] at least the weekend before.

[3:43:49] And then starting in March, we will move your study sessions to Wednesday, not the Thursday, to give you all of us one extra day to discuss and prepare for this meeting regular meeting.

[3:44:03] I also heard the comment to prepare protocols for study sessions and study sessions, and I hope to have that ready for you in February.

[3:44:12] That's it from me.

[3:44:14] Thank you, Mr. Murray.

[3:44:16] So any questions on any of that real quick before we move on?

[3:44:20] So, as I mentioned at the beginning of our meeting tonight, one item that Vice Chair Hunter

[3:44:27] Dr. Dr. Alpco and Mr. Murray, and I discussed was how to address and move forward some

[3:44:35] of these items that are sort of things that we need to work on and support together and

[3:44:42] sort of adopting the city council model of bringing it up towards the end of our meeting as sort

[3:44:46] a new business item asking for a simple majority on if you're

[3:44:50] amenable to add in that to an agenda for future discussion and action by the commission

[3:44:54] potentially.

[3:44:57] And so

[3:45:01] As Commissioner Epic indicated, he has an item that he would like to discuss with the group. I also have one item that I want to put on there and I'm going to say I think we all have a laundry list of to do items. So in the interest of everyone's sanity and time tonight, I'm going to limit all of each individual commissioner to one item for tonight to bring up to put on to the work plan.

[3:45:24] If you have one ready, and if not, no problem because there'll be a chance in approximately 30 days to do it again.

[3:45:34] Commissioner traffic I'll yield to you first or anyone else that would like to bring an item up that they would like to discuss.

[3:45:41] So, you're up in the night. Yeah, I have one item also.

[3:45:49] It's not really for discussion, it's the Southwest Colorado economic report that I sent out for everyone and I hope I sincerely hope that everyone had a chance to read that or will read that.

[3:46:04] I think it's pertinent to the business that comes in front of us.

[3:46:07] I would hope that the entire city of Durango wouldn't in fact read that outlook for this coming year

[3:46:15] and hopefully bring some new perspectives to what seems to be status quo thinking.

[3:46:21] So aside from that, that was that.

[3:46:25] The point I wanted to raise tonight was, as I said, to propose that we have a motion for a resolution to the city council,

[3:46:33] requesting a change of the current one-year mandate, term for the Community Development Commission Board Chair to a maximum consecutive two-year board chair tenure, inclusive of an annual renewal by a majority board vote.

[3:46:51] So, I think that's self-explanatory. I'd be happy to talk about it more. And as part of this,

[3:46:59] understanding the timing sequences, I'd like to propose that that be put in front of us

[3:47:06] as a motion tonight for action.

[3:47:12] Point of order, Mr. Jarrod.

[3:47:13] I would recommend that we discuss it in if there is consensus around the item that

[3:47:18] be placed in February's Jennifer Actions, didn't notice this item for action.

[3:47:29] Generally, correct in and consistent with what city council is doing, Commissioner Apeck.

[3:47:37] So noted, and I'll also say I'm going to abstain from discussion or voting on the side of right now.

[3:47:43] So that's the last time going to say about it.

[3:47:49] I would be fine with this appearing as a gender item for February and that may then also relate to

[3:48:01] whatever motion comes in front. I'd like to have it played first on the agenda because

[3:48:06] obviously then any other considerations for approval of a chair or whatever would come

[3:48:12] hopefully after that. So it doesn't negate this particular action item. That would be my

[3:48:18] on that. And I would be fine as a commissioner and so let's have it on the agenda for February

[3:48:27] for a thorough discussion.

[3:48:31] I will clarify one other point of order. I think that the

[3:48:35] the general format we discussed and I'll all look to Vice Chair Hunter to correct me,

[3:48:41] but was essentially for a commissioner to make a proposal for an item to be placed on a agenda with a

[3:48:51] If there's any quick clarifying questions, we can ask those, but then look for Mr. Murray to call the vote for a simple majority to look for placing that item on the agenda.

[3:49:03] So in other words, we don't accidentally turn this into a full discussion of the item because, again, it was not noticed.

[3:49:08] But a very quick clarifying question if necessary for commissioner epic on this particular item.

[3:49:27] So I'm just saying, since we're not going to really, it's not, it's just that for, would we like it as an item on our agenda?

[3:49:40] That's just, yes or no, after it's presented, right? So we would be at that point now.

[3:49:47] That's correct.

[3:49:50] So, yeah.

[3:49:51] So Mr. Murray, maybe if you would have called a question on commissioner ethics behalf.

[3:50:03] So, so this is a simple, a simple majority, and it's a request at an individual commissioner to say, I'd like this on a future agenda item, and then if it's worth discussion, then four people say yes, and if it's not, then it's not, but basically allows the idea, again, going back to my preamble for the meeting is to ensure that no one commissioner, regardless of, you know, chair, vice chair.

[3:50:32] Long-term member runs the agenda for adding topics like could I ask a request of staff that role call not always be taken in the same pattern so

[3:50:46] So it so so it doesn't always land on the shoulders of the same person at the end for instance

[3:50:52] Alma ends up being called last on these all the time and if it's a 33 I

[3:50:57] know it that would go for that would well

[3:51:00] Sorry the chair but

[3:51:02] makes up the commissioners in general just because it I feel that it's more

[3:51:07] representative of because people I'll speak for myself held. Sometimes this

[3:51:13] comes in front of me and it's like you don't know which way you're going to go

[3:51:15] and if you don't know which term you're going to be voted in it might change the way

[3:51:18] that you're going to vote and what we've been consistent the entire time in

[3:51:23] regards to that or part we get I that maybe that's what I'll bring up here later

[3:51:27] for discussion that can be my question for discussion I'll let you make the role

[3:51:31] However, you please right now, but that'll be my question once we take this,

[3:51:40] though.

[3:51:41] Then sit right here.

[3:51:48] I, I can appreciate Commissioner for Aderson's point that there are times where it might be who's lost for the voting order to not always be the same.

[3:51:59] I think it's reasonable. Sorry to really monkey wrench that whole thing.

[3:52:03] But, so I think you get to call and give us your words first on this question. Do you want me to

[3:52:09] restate what I heard from Commissioner Epic? I think we all know, right? Or do you want to be

[3:52:15] restated, everyone? All right. I'm good. Commissioner Evans. Yes. Yes.

[3:52:23] in there, Fredrickson.

[3:52:26] No.

[3:52:28] Shener epic.

[3:52:30] Yes.

[3:52:31] Nice chair hunter.

[3:52:33] Yes.

[3:52:35] Shener stats and lean.

[3:52:37] Yes.

[3:52:38] All right, shorts.

[3:52:39] Yes.

[3:52:42] I will abstain this termary as I indicated.

[3:52:46] However, I think I did the count and we ended up with five BS votes, one, no vote, and

[3:52:51] one, abstention, which means that will be placed on a

[3:52:54] on the next meeting for discussion as

[3:52:57] commissioner epic proposed yes all right

[3:53:02] i will i will i know vice chair hunter has one and i have one but i want to

[3:53:07] look to my other commissioners first for any items commissioner sets and

[3:53:10] lee looks like he's ready

[3:53:11] no i'm just gonna get the vibes of

[3:53:14] this uh new segment

[3:53:17] and so that i can come up with something a little more cohesive

[3:53:20] yeah fair enough we'll work our way through this awkwardness together

[3:53:26] I think my point was made.

[3:53:29] Yes, it was.

[3:53:32] Now I'm going to mix things up.

[3:53:34] Commissioner Evans.

[3:53:35] You have anything you want to play.

[3:53:37] You want to ask to be placed on a future agenda.

[3:53:42] I do.

[3:53:43] But I wasn't prepared, but I think I can wing it.

[3:53:51] I'd like to get more input on from the staff on the time and the procedures.

[3:53:57] they use the monitor vacation rentals and ADUs,

[3:54:11] because we know CUPs take a lot more

[3:54:14] conditions, so that must mean monitoring. Does their service, can their service do that?

[3:54:21] What is the procedure? And then, yeah.

[3:54:27] So you just want to report on what that monitoring looks like today that staff is already doing?

[3:54:32] Yeah, more in debt so we can get an idea when we pass the CUP, what kind of, what is that going to be staff required to monitor that?

[3:54:46] Okay.

[3:54:48] It's just, yeah, I don't need it now.

[3:54:50] I mean, even in the next month, but I mean,

[3:54:53] You just wanted on a future item at some point so we can understand that more.

[3:54:57] Director Locke, I believe wants to try to help answer that, or at least address the question initially

[3:55:02] and then commissioner epic you're up next.

[3:55:04] Now, I would like to say that we would need time to be able to get something like that together.

[3:55:10] And I'm already in the process of doing some stuff for the ADUs for city council and so

[3:55:15] that will play into that and vacation rentals. I think we have a pretty straightforward process with

[3:55:20] that. If we move that forward, just give us some time.

[3:55:24] Yeah, I'm not. I'm not. Yeah. Maybe for all of us, I should clarify. I know Commissioner

[3:55:30] Epic give a pressing time matter on the item that you brought up, but I do think that for

[3:55:34] the most part we need to view these as items that we are formally requesting to be on the

[3:55:39] agenda and be worked on, but very seldom will be able to say the exact timing for them.

[3:55:45] I think that is a reasonable expectation time. I failed to probably say that out loud on the

[3:55:50] on it. Commissioner Patrick, did you have anything pretty

[3:55:52] funny? It's just a point of process and that is does that report then

[3:55:57] commissioner Evans occur at a study session or does that report occur in

[3:56:02] the public meeting?

[3:56:07] I find it informational for the public as well as for

[3:56:14] us. Obviously, City Council asked for a special study session just to go over

[3:56:20] to use stuff. I find that there's just a lot of interest on how that actually runs and I'm

[3:56:28] just concerned how much staff time gets used and how we follow through and make sure things

[3:56:37] don't fall through the cracks because a lot of vacation rentals, it's just an overall understanding

[3:56:43] of the procedure. And it doesn't have to be, yes, I understand this should take, this is going

[3:56:52] to take time. I'm not expecting anything next month or even in March.

[3:57:03] So, okay. So, Mr. Murray,

[3:57:07] I think we're ready. Let's try to make these quick. Go for it. We will roll call on that.

[3:57:12] Yeah, real quick. Okay. Commissioners.

[3:57:15] Stats and Lee.

[3:57:26] No.

[3:57:29] Vice chair hunter.

[3:57:31] Yes. Commissioner epic. Yes. Commissioner Evans.

[3:57:36] Yes.

[3:57:37] Sheriff Frederickson. No.

[3:57:40] Commissioner Schwartz.

[3:57:42] Yes.

[3:57:43] And chair Scott.

[3:57:45] Yes. So we would like that place on a future agenda

[3:57:49] understanding that it will take time

[3:57:51] but we have a yes of five to two.

[3:57:55] Yeah, there was one of the assumptions that this is like the next meeting.

[3:58:01] No.

[3:58:01] They were requesting no.

[3:58:02] No, it's not.

[3:58:03] Future meetings.

[3:58:05] It's meetings.

[3:58:09] How I view this in many ways is how to make the work plan actually had to do something.

[3:58:14] So I will go ahead and go next.

[3:58:18] I would propose that we should ask staff to review and propose amendments to LUDC 6 3 14 abandonment of rights away and easements.

[3:58:32] This has been on our work plan for a year and a half with no change in status.

[3:58:36] And I would like to go ahead and request that staff go ahead and get some proposed language in front of us.

[3:58:42] And previous meetings various commissioners suddenly were not here at this time, but, you know, we, the commission previously discussed that it should include

[3:58:54] language that included the city receiving public benefit for a right away abandonment, which is effectively the

[3:59:02] Gifting of public land to a private citizen as well as the consideration of document and hardship as a need for that instance.

[3:59:14] I, and by no means know the exact right language at this time, and I have none to propose, but I would like to request that we make this a project for

[3:59:23] need development to address this before any other issues come up.

[3:59:31] Again, the question that occurring

[3:59:32] not at a steady session would at the moment, it's a public meeting. Since I'm proposing that

[3:59:37] staff brings a code amendment forward, it has to come to a public hearing. You're just for the record.

[3:59:42] All of our study sessions are also public hearing. They're all public. Public meetings. Sorry.

[3:59:51] Brad, you're a lot of co, come on up.

[3:59:55] Fair fine question.

[3:59:56] Yes.

[4:00:00] The staff can go back and take a stab at something, but it would be nice if there was a discussion over a little more direction for CZ.

[4:00:10] So I will amend my request for discussion of amendments to 6314 with staff proposing some things they think are reasonable.

[4:00:19] And the commission being able to read feedback because obviously that after go back and forth city council anyone.

[4:00:25] Be reasonable enough. All right, the interest keeping this gone. Mr.

[4:00:32] Murray. Mr. Happick.

[4:00:33] Yes, Mr. Frederickson.

[4:00:37] Yes, Mr. Stetson League. Yes, Mr. Evans.

[4:00:44] Yes.

[4:00:44] Yes, Mr. Hunter. Yes.

[4:00:47] Mr. Schwartz. Yes.

[4:00:49] Yes, 7-0. We're going to put that on. All right.

[4:00:55] Yes, piggybacking. I almost thought you had it covered there. When we come across items like the fireworks, the city fireworks prohibition in relation to projects that we hear and this happens often. What is the appropriate venue to prepare can we propose changes to the LUDC text?

[4:01:21] What is the appropriate way to do that?

[4:01:28] I think you can make comments such as this at the end of a meeting.

[4:01:32] And staff takes them into consideration.

[4:01:34] We will also share this information with the city manager.

[4:01:39] We will then work with staff on their coordination with council.

[4:01:44] And that will determine whether or not we are able to bring back the amendments to you.

[4:01:49] So, it sounds like we don't even have to have a special discussion at the end of the meeting.

[4:01:57] The meeting minutes being taken will reflect our...

[4:02:03] No?

[4:02:06] The meeting minutes would reflect that we suggested, hey, a prohibition on fireworks would be good to have on that notice for vacation rentals that's posted inside the unit.

[4:02:18] you can provide that direction to staff and then we will take it up with City Manager.

[4:02:23] Does the entire CDC would it be better if we had a majority vote on that rather than it just be one person's opinion?

[4:02:34] Do you think there's value in that?

[4:02:35] It provides clarity as to.

[4:02:37] Yeah, and I'll also provide another opportunity for process, which is,

[4:02:41] you want something that you think is important and missed in the LUDC and we notice it,

[4:02:47] you could prepare a memo or consideration of the CDC to send directly to city council,

[4:02:53] which is well within our purview. Because I think that we have heard from

[4:03:00] various city counselors that they do not have the time,

[4:03:05] be remotely to even look at the entire packet much less the minutes of our meetings. So I

[4:03:12] I appreciate Mr. Murray and staff willingness and regular advocacy through the City Manager's

[4:03:19] office for various topics that the commission is brought forward that they think are important.

[4:03:23] I think the commission also does have the opportunity via public notice and then discussion of memo

[4:03:30] to send a memo on behalf of the CDC to city council.

[4:03:35] So, so it sounds like, in this particular case, just so I can understand this,

[4:03:42] would you like a memo sent to Daniel and to Mr. Murray and to Director Loco

[4:03:49] and let them forward it to the rest of this commission to see if they agree with it or not?

[4:03:57] I think the basic process we're going for here is do you have support amongst the commission to bring that up for a subject for a subject of future meeting.

[4:04:08] So you would like to propose that we talk about.

[4:04:11] You appropriate message to me.

[4:04:12] No, I think you what you're asking.

[4:04:15] So we're talking we're in the appropriate method.

[4:04:17] If you want a code amendment, which is what you're talking about, the fireworks notice in the.

[4:04:23] In the vacation rental.

[4:04:24] I thought does it. No worries. There's, um, then you would say I'd like to discuss changes to the code related into

[4:04:33] vacation rentals and that's a specific thing. You can say just because that will focus the ability for staff to say

[4:04:40] this is what we're going to talk about. Okay. And then propose it to happen at some future meetings since February

[4:04:46] might be overloaded already. Yeah. I think I think that it's going to be the meetings between staff

[4:04:54] and probably chair and vice chair who over those folks are to help prioritize where we place some things.

[4:04:59] Okay, like so yeah, not trying to put it on a specific meeting.

[4:05:03] So then I guess then I would motion.

[4:05:06] Right. It's a motion that we place on some future meeting agenda to discuss an amendment to LUDC to include the notice about the city prohibition of fireworks.

[4:05:20] Inside the vacation rental units where out of town people can read it and be

[4:05:26] come educated. Mr. Murray,

[4:05:33] Chairscock. Oh, man, weird. Yes,

[4:05:40] chair at Epic Art Commissioner, Epic. Yes.

[4:05:45] Commissioner Schwartz.

[4:05:48] Yes. Commissioner sets in me. Yes. Commissioner Evans.

[4:05:56] I deferred as a group on that one. I would say, I guess so. Yes.

[4:06:02] Mr. Frederickson. No.

[4:06:05] Six. Yes. One. No.

[4:06:07] Be well. Throw that in the work plan at some point here.

[4:06:10] All right.

[4:06:12] This has been a little awkward and I apologize for it, but I think we've all hopefully learned a little bit.

[4:06:17] And I would give one last offer to those that do not have the chance if there's anything you want to get

[4:06:21] it, memorialized, Commissioner Swartz?

[4:06:26] I have a quick question for staff.

[4:06:28] And I feel like me have asked this,

[4:06:29] but I can't remember the answer.

[4:06:30] Are the renew grants still a thing?

[4:06:33] Because we had so many of them,

[4:06:35] and I guess they also wanted to give an update,

[4:06:36] I drove past subway the other day,

[4:06:38] and they did fix the roof.

[4:06:41] So it's happening.

[4:06:42] But it just seems like we had so many

[4:06:44] of those renew grant applications,

[4:06:46] and it was really cool to see different projects

[4:06:49] within the community with local businesses and then we haven't seen a need for like over a year.

[4:06:55] So I was just curious if they were a thing.

[4:06:58] As far as I know they are, I can check in with Tommy Crosby on the status.

[4:07:02] Yeah, we haven't seen Tommy in a long time.

[4:07:04] It's like, yep.

[4:07:05] Thank you.

[4:07:08] Anything further, anyone?

[4:07:09] Commissioner's death and late.

[4:07:10] Well, I'm very interested in this new item nine process that we have going.

[4:07:19] But these meetings inevitably run long, I have yet to be at a meeting where somebody didn't say.

[4:07:27] Usually they're not this long.

[4:07:29] As far as I can tell they're always this long.

[4:07:36] Given that we're kind of in charge of this process, how do we keep ourselves from going overboard with all of our great ideas?

[4:07:46] Yeah, hi, we're opening up more time here.

[4:07:50] I don't have the magic answer as the chair.

[4:07:52] I do think that one of the things that we can do better is, hopefully as we can more practice,

[4:07:58] we'll be easy to say I want to add this to an agenda.

[4:08:01] Less than 30 seconds, you throw it out there.

[4:08:03] We take a very quick vote.

[4:08:06] That would be one hope for not letting this fall.

[4:08:08] I also think that we should all be limited to one item permitting maximum just by tradition of the commission.

[4:08:13] And it's not going to be written in the boards and commissions in the manual, but I think that is how we are fair and reasonable to each other.

[4:08:21] And I am very open for discussion from others, but that is a general idea from me. Commissioner Frederson has a comment.

[4:08:29] This meeting was long before we started talking about this.

[4:08:32] Yes.

[4:08:34] This is a stated consequence of board consolidation that was noted extensively three years ago when all this was happening.

[4:08:45] That once this board took on everything within one meeting that this board would be in a position whereby moving forward at a certain time our agenda is what reached the level of maximization that they're currently hitting oftentimes in many meetings.

[4:09:01] to where we have had some where we've gotten out earlier and sorry,

[4:09:08] but I hate to say it,

[4:09:10] but there might be a time when two a month that lasts an hour and 45 minutes rather

[4:09:16] than one that lasts four hours. And I'm not, I don't want to vote on that tonight.

[4:09:24] I just want

[4:09:24] to say it almost laughing because she was there for all of those discussions that we had

[4:09:29] regards to this happening, and here we are. And so perhaps next month, or if these continue

[4:09:37] in August, we start to talk about it. If every time we're here, tell 905, but it was fun to hang out

[4:09:46] with everybody tonight. Have a safe time getting home.

[4:09:52] It was 72 degrees here today, just so y'all know.

[4:09:57] And with that, we're adjourned at 9.05 PM or whenever good night.

Hybrid Community Development Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript