[16:51] I was going to say let's get her going.

[16:57] » Okay, we'll call to order the meeting of

[17:00] Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026.

[17:03] Roll call. Um, Chuck Howard

[17:06] >> present,

[17:06] >> Henley Maker, Katie Maxwell, alternate

[17:10] Jefferson Lynch, alternate Judy Murphy

[17:13] >> here, vice chair Ursula Cruzi

[17:15] >> here,

[17:16] >> chair Cindy Olsen

[17:17] >> here. Great.

[17:18] >> Okay. Approval as the of the agenda as

[17:21] written.

[17:23] A motion and a second. I'll make a

[17:26] motion to approve the agenda

[17:29] >> of September 2nd.

[17:31] >> On September 2nd, 2026.

[17:32] >> I'll second it. All those in favor? Yes.

[17:36] >> Opposed? No. Motion carries.

[17:39] Um, now we'll go to public comment.

[17:42] Think we have anybody in the audience or

[17:44] online for public comment?

[17:47] >> Nobody online.

[17:48] >> Nobody.

[17:49] >> Okay. Any commissioners conflict of

[17:52] interest on the presented agenda?

[17:56] Nope. No conflict of interest. So,

[17:59] approval of the minutes for August 5th.

[18:02] Need a motion and a second.

[18:04] >> Motion to approve the minutes of August

[18:06] 5th, 2026.

[18:09] >> Second.

[18:11] Um, discussion, corrections?

[18:16] » Nope. [clears throat]

[18:18] Uh, all those in favor? Yes.

[18:20] >> Yes.

[18:21] >> Opposed?

[18:22] >> Motion carries.

[18:25] >> Staff updates.

[18:27] >> I had all my updates in the report, so

[18:29] if you have questions for me, let me

[18:30] know. But Nick had a

[18:32] Yeah. So, uh I was at council, what was

[18:36] it?

[18:38] >> Yeah. Uh last month and uh

[18:44] Kate or Lisa brought up alternate

[18:46] procedures for all of the boards and

[18:49] they wanted me to talk to you guys about

[18:51] it. So, I know we only have Judy here

[18:54] tonight and Jefferson's not here. So if

[18:57] the uh

[19:00] let's say all five regular members were

[19:03] here, right? Uh and it was like let's imagine we just have everyone

[19:10] here. Uh if the uh matter before us were

[19:17] um

[19:19] let's just say the general updates

[19:21] section, right? anyone can participate,

[19:24] throw in how they feel, etc. If the

[19:29] agenda then moved to the public hearing

[19:31] on the subdivision application that is

[19:34] when uh the I would ask that the uh

[19:39] alternates not participate when it's

[19:42] quasi judicial because of uh creating a

[19:47] record where uh

[19:50] people that are not on the board that

[19:52] evening are

[19:55] uh asking questions of the applicant.

[19:57] and controlling how

[19:59] the hearing goes in a way. Uh if you

[20:02] think about it like the commission sits

[20:04] as the judge in a quasi judicial

[20:06] application, you don't want uh someone

[20:10] that really technically isn't the judge

[20:12] for that piece asking questions of of

[20:15] witnesses in that case. Uh but in

[20:18] contrast to that, if we were to then

[20:21] move to uh 8B tonight, the public

[20:24] hearing on the ordinance, since that is

[20:27] not quasi judicial and just legislative,

[20:30] uh alternates can talk as much as they

[20:33] want, not talk as much as they want,

[20:35] participate,

[20:37] you know, feel free to to do whatever

[20:40] the alternate decides to do. And that's

[20:42] a blanket rule across

[20:45] all of our boards and commissions. Just

[20:48] quasi judicial

[20:50] items limit participation. Everything

[20:53] else is fine. And obviously there's the

[20:57] same goes for anything on the work

[20:58] session agenda. There's never any

[21:00] restrictions or anything like that.

[21:02] >> Okay. Yeah, I think we kind of do it

[21:05] that way. Wouldn't that

[21:06] >> I did too. I I just uh

[21:09] >> Kate I think was the one that asked me

[21:11] to just uh make sure to talk to you guys

[21:14] about it and then I'm also going to send

[21:16] a memo to uh HPRC about it too.

[21:20] >> Um a question though.

[21:21] >> Yeah.

[21:22] >> So like tonight we don't have a full

[21:25] >> So like Yeah. So Judy's participating,

[21:28] >> right? So she would even though she's an

[21:30] alternate but we have a quorum.

[21:33] >> That's why I thought they probably

[21:35] should sit up here. I don't

[21:37] >> I think anytime they're going to be a

[21:38] voting member in a part of the meeting

[21:41] because if the regular commission's not

[21:43] here and the alternate is filling in,

[21:45] they should sit up here then there's no

[21:48] like the audience doesn't think well is

[21:51] she or isn't she or isn't don't do it

[21:53] now though. [laughter]

[21:55] >> I I don't I don't care one way or

[21:57] another. I don't even your

[21:59] >> Yeah, but I just think it sends a clear

[22:01] message to whoever is watching or

[22:03] thinking at that point. I I know it's

[22:05] confusing though because we do have

[22:07] seven chairs up there. So

[22:09] >> yeah. Yeah. But no. Um I Yeah. Okay.

[22:12] >> I think um people went that um

[22:14] alternates on boards have gone to

[22:16] council and just expressed that they

[22:17] don't understand why they can't

[22:19] participate all the time. So I think

[22:22] that's where it was coming from is that

[22:23] alternates have reached out and said,

[22:25] "Hey, I don't really understand why I

[22:27] don't get to

[22:28] >> well they can

[22:28] >> comment and stuff." And so that that's

[22:30] the the difference is the quasi

[22:32] judicial. They can be a public speaker.

[22:34] They can sign up.

[22:35] >> Of course. Yes, that is the actually I

[22:37] thank you for mentioning that.

[22:39] >> Y

[22:40] >> if it if it was like for this

[22:42] subdivision, let's pretend that Judy you

[22:45] weren't participating on the subdivision

[22:47] tonight and you really wanted to tell

[22:51] someone how you feel. you would go and

[22:54] during public comment be subject to the

[22:56] same rules of everyone else and you just

[22:58] say I'm making these comments as a

[23:00] member of the public and not as you know

[23:03] an alternate member of the board.

[23:05] >> No, that's good to clear it up. I think

[23:07] we've been pretty on it.

[23:10] >> Yeah.

[23:10] So, okay.

[23:13] Any [clears throat] other updates?

[23:16] Nothing else for me unless

[23:17] >> any questions for Dylan on any of the

[23:19] updates he had not counting what we have

[23:22] on the agenda.

[23:24] >> No. Okay. So, we'll go on to new

[23:26] business where we'll have a public

[23:29] hearing on the minor subdivision request

[23:32] that we have for 521 Colorado Boulevard.

[23:36] Um,

[23:38] so, oh, I got to read this first. This

[23:42] matter is set for a public hearing

[23:44] before the city of Idaho Springs

[23:46] Planning Commission tonight. The city

[23:47] has received a request for a minor

[23:49] subdivision to create four lots at 521

[23:53] Colorado Boulevard. For this

[23:55] application, the planning commission

[23:56] will conduct a hearing and vote to

[23:58] either recommend or not recommend the

[24:00] application to city council. This is a

[24:03] formal public meeting. We will require

[24:05] testimony to be given under oath. Will

[24:07] not follow any rules of evidence. If

[24:10] there is a question about the

[24:11] admissibility of evidence or testimony,

[24:14] I'll make a ruling on that as the chair.

[24:16] After I open the hearing, I'll invite

[24:18] city staff to give a presentation. Then

[24:20] the applicant will be invited to present

[24:23] evidence and testimony. Then members of

[24:25] the public will be invited to give

[24:27] evidence and testimony. City staff and

[24:29] the applicant may respond to public

[24:31] testimony. The applicant will then be

[24:34] given the opportunity to have the last

[24:36] word on the matter raised during the

[24:38] public hearing.

[24:39] Um throughout the process, commissioners

[24:42] may ask questions. After we close the

[24:44] public hearing, the commission will

[24:46] begin its deliberations and make our

[24:48] decision. We'll do this by motion. Um

[24:51] you'll see a motion in the staff report

[24:54] and in our m motions guidelines. If any

[24:59] if we cannot reach a decision tonight,

[25:02] we can continue the matter. I'll now

[25:04] open the public hearing at 608 for the

[25:09] minor subdivision request create four

[25:12] lots at 521 Colorado Boulevard.

[25:17] All right. Well, I'll start with a brief

[25:19] presentation of my staff reports. As

[25:23] mentioned, this is a minor subdivision

[25:25] application to create four lots at the

[25:27] subject property. Um, interestingly,

[25:30] this is sort of a a lot with a split

[25:33] zoning at the moment because uh there's

[25:36] two bubble homes that are zoned R2 and

[25:38] dental office is zone C2. The goal is to

[25:41] split those lots and then also create a

[25:44] fourth lot on the back half of the

[25:46] property which fronts IO Street um and

[25:50] center alley. Plat is included in the

[25:54] staff report in the packet. Um, this was

[25:58] referred to

[26:00] Excel, Comcast, Centry, Link, School

[26:03] District, PD, Fire Authority,

[26:05] Engineering, Public Works. Um, we had no

[26:08] issues from our referral agencies or

[26:10] comments. The there's five criteria for

[26:14] approval as the staff report suggests.

[26:18] It appears that it meets the the

[26:21] criteria in in my opinion as staff. All

[26:25] the lots will continue to meet zoning.

[26:27] Comprehensive plan calls a transitional

[26:29] mixed use which will allow residential

[26:32] and commercial uses. Um so all the

[26:34] current uses are in alignment with that.

[26:37] And so with that in mind

[26:41] staff recommend approval of or recommend

[26:44] I guess that you recommend approval of

[26:46] the proposed minor subdivision and I

[26:48] don't have any conditions included.

[26:52] >> Question. So what do they want it zoned

[26:55] at?

[26:56] >> Um zoning wouldn't change as part of

[26:58] this.

[26:59] >> You can take the property and keep the

[27:01] individuals zoned separately then.

[27:04] >> Well, because right now it's it's odd.

[27:06] It's kind of I think

[27:11] it's it sort of is when the zoning came

[27:13] in. My guess is this was all one lot,

[27:15] but they it was just zoned as well these

[27:17] are residential uses. let's put

[27:19] residential zoning on it and then rest

[27:22] of it is commercial already. And so by

[27:26] formally drawing in these lines, the two

[27:28] mobile homes remain mobile homes and

[27:31] remain as residential lots. So they're

[27:32] in conformance.

[27:34] >> Okay.

[27:34] >> The other two lots, one of which has the

[27:37] um the dental office and the other which

[27:40] is is vacant at the moment, those are

[27:42] zone C2. Dentist office is allowed in

[27:45] C2. So, it actually kind of clears up

[27:49] this zoning issue of having multiple

[27:52] different uses on a single legal parcel.

[27:58] » If they did want to do a reszoning,

[27:59] they'd have to come back for a zoning

[28:02] amendment.

[28:02] >> Okay.

[28:05] So, the zoning stays the form

[28:08] same.

[28:14] It's lots one through 12. Okay.

[28:16] >> Those are the the original city lots.

[28:20] You know, it's like these uses are

[28:21] spread out over 12 lots. And so the

[28:27] consequence, I guess, or the final

[28:29] outcome of this would be to create

[28:31] instead of lots 1 through 12, it would

[28:33] be instead just lots I guess 1 A, 2 A, 3

[28:39] A, and 4 A.

[28:40] >> Okay.

[28:42] >> For the minor subdivision.

[28:43] >> Okay. That's kind of what I all of a

[28:45] sudden when I saw the 12 I was like okay

[28:48] >> okay

[28:51] » yes

[28:52] >> that's it

[28:54] >> for me unless

[28:55] >> applicant presentation

[28:57] you're the applicant

[29:01] [laughter]

[29:02] >> would you like to go up there um

[29:05] >> give your name um I need your you to

[29:07] state your name and address the record

[29:09] and I'm going to swear you

[29:10] >> okay my name is Scott Keys my address is

[29:13] 521 Colorado Boulevard.

[29:15] >> Please raise your right hand

[29:16] >> in Idaho Springs, Colorado.

[29:18] >> Thank you. Do you swear the testimony

[29:20] you're about to give is the truth, the

[29:22] whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[29:23] >> I do.

[29:24] >> Thank you.

[29:25] [clears throat]

[29:26] >> Um the only comment I had was um

[29:31] the purpose of reszoning this for me is

[29:33] I have a I mean obviously I own the

[29:36] whole

[29:37] plaque, the whole all 12 lots, right? Um

[29:41] but the bottom piece, the piece that

[29:44] fronts center alley, um I lost a

[29:46] building in the snowstorm of 20 24

[29:52] big one in March when we had like 5 ft

[29:53] of snow in the 24

[29:56] building collapsed. It was formally um

[29:59] a lot of things was storage. We had we

[30:04] demoed the lot. Now it's pretty kind of

[30:06] useless for me. Um, and so I thought it

[30:10] would be a good idea to subdivide that

[30:12] piece off of where my dental practice

[30:14] sits and and either

[30:18] be able to sell it as a separate lot

[30:19] instead of part of my dental practice um

[30:22] or decide what to do with it at some

[30:25] point. So, this makes it easier to

[30:28] subdivide it that way rather than trying

[30:29] to figure out how to cut it out of 12

[30:32] different lots.

[30:34] Any

[30:37] questions for

[30:40] seems pretty straightforward? I guess

[30:41] one of the questions I have is if it

[30:43] gets

[30:46] or is there taps? How do taps work when

[30:49] it's like that? So you have one, two,

[30:52] three.

[30:53] >> There is a tap. To my knowledge, there

[30:54] is a tap at the what we call slab right

[30:58] now. There's a tap down there. Um,

[31:01] >> oh, on the one that the building

[31:02] collapsed on.

[31:04] >> Yeah.

[31:04] >> So then you have the dental and then the

[31:06] other two. So you have like four taps

[31:07] there. Okay.

[31:09] >> Because if they were to subdivide it and

[31:10] then try to sell the piece, they'd have

[31:12] to do a water tap then. Water.

[31:15] >> Water tap is not always there.

[31:17] >> Okay.

[31:19] >> Right.

[31:20] >> Yeah. Yeah. If there was not an

[31:22] additional tap, then they would have to

[31:24] purchase a tap. But certainly they

[31:26] could. I think regardless if you were to

[31:30] if if they were to develop a new

[31:31] building on the lot and there's not an

[31:33] existing water sewage t even if it was

[31:35] all one lot you'd still have to pay an

[31:38] additional

[31:40] fee.

[31:42] [clears throat]

[31:44] >> That's interesting.

[31:45] >> Okay, that's the only question I had was

[31:48] on that. Seems pretty straightforward.

[31:51] Um you mentioned zoning though, but

[31:52] we're not changing the zoning. Okay,

[31:55] just

[31:56] >> you said z. Did you catch it?

[32:00] >> Which I understood what you meant.

[32:02] >> Okay, any questions from the questioner?

[32:05] [clears throat]

[32:06] >> Not really. I mean, the only my only

[32:09] thought is um obvious it's pretty ser. I

[32:12] agree. Uh

[32:16] I love the sound that I get in my house.

[32:18] So, I was just the only thought is like

[32:20] if you were to sell that lot on this

[32:22] outside like you're aware that they

[32:24] could take your sunshine.

[32:26] >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[32:27] >> Yeah. I was actually thinking about that

[32:29] this morning. It's kind of funny.

[32:30] [laughter]

[32:31] But, uh yeah, I'm aware of that

[32:34] depending on I think the buildability of

[32:37] the lot is is pretty restrictive because

[32:40] of the setbacks from the street to my

[32:42] knowledge. Um they were grandfathered in

[32:44] when I bought the lot. Um, I don't know

[32:48] that they stay that way for good,

[32:50] especially if it trans transfers to

[32:52] someone else, but that's for the city to

[32:54] decide, not for me. Um, so I don't I

[32:58] don't know if I don't know how much

[33:00] vertical obviously I don't know how much

[33:02] vertical would be allowed. I know

[33:04] apartments are kind of tall, but I don't

[33:06] know that you can get that there. So,

[33:08] >> okay. Well, as long as you're aware, I'm

[33:10] >> aware. It's your deal. Perfect.

[33:11] [laughter]

[33:13] And it might be worth noting it's kind

[33:15] of a strange lot line.

[33:18] >> And the reason for that is because it

[33:20] basically follows a pretty steep

[33:22] downward slope that slopes from north to

[33:25] south. So

[33:27] >> that probably

[33:29] >> reduces the

[33:32] good 10 or 12 feet of

[33:34] >> rain difference between the two lots.

[33:39] So that might help should something

[33:42] Also, my thought, not this is kind of a

[33:45] sidebar, but my thought was if if I if

[33:48] it's subdivided off of the piece of

[33:51] property where my dental practice sits

[33:54] and I needed to do some

[33:56] excavation or [clears throat] retaining

[33:59] wall or something to hold that hill at

[34:01] some point, then it might be easier to

[34:03] do that as a separate item that's just

[34:05] kind of a sidewall

[34:07] rather than

[34:09] tear down the fence.

[34:11] Yeah,

[34:14] [clears throat]

[34:15] >> it's quite a difference between

[34:20] » the height of the alley and the height

[34:24] of Colorado Boulevard. [clears throat]

[34:29] » Oh, yeah.

[34:31] >> I mean, the the building that collapsed

[34:34] was was I think it was 20 feet tall or

[34:38] 24 feet tall at the center. So, and it

[34:40] was just right at the just just above

[34:44] it's clear.

[34:47] » Okay. Thank you.

[34:48] >> Yes, ma'am.

[34:49] >> Uh public comment. Anybody online?

[34:52] Nobody here?

[34:54] >> Nobody online.

[34:56] >> Okay. Um

[34:59] any other questions for staff or

[35:02] applicant?

[35:05] Oh, okay. So, now we'll close the public

[35:07] hearing.

[35:09] It is 619

[35:12] on the minor subdivision request for 521

[35:15] Colorado Boulevard. And now we can

[35:18] deliberate. And if we're done

[35:20] deliberating, I'll need a motion

[35:23] and a second.

[35:27] Right. make a motion unless

[35:31] >> motion to recommend approval of

[35:32] subdivision

[35:35] uh 26-002.

[35:38] » Is that enough?

[35:39] >> Yep.

[35:43] » We have a second.

[35:45] >> I'll second it.

[35:47] >> Any further discussion?

[35:50] So, roll call. Chuck Howard.

[35:53] >> Yes.

[35:54] >> Judy Murphy.

[35:55] >> Yes. Uh, Vice Chair Ursula Lake.

[35:58] >> Yes.

[35:58] >> Chair Cindy Olsen.

[35:59] >> Yes.

[36:04] » Okay.

[36:07] [laughter]

[36:08] >> Enjoy.

[36:11] >> Good night.

[36:14] >> Okay. Now we'll go into another public

[36:17] hearing.

[36:19] Um,

[36:21] it's a public hearing on ordinance

[36:23] number 17 series 2026, an ordinance

[36:27] amending chapter 21 of the Idaho Springs

[36:31] Municipal Coal to regulate group homes

[36:34] and related residential uses for persons

[36:37] with disabilities in conformance to

[36:39] Colorado law and the federal housing

[36:42] act.

[36:45] Um,

[36:48] so we open the hearing.

[36:50] >> Yeah.

[36:51] >> 6:20 p.m. And we'll start with city

[36:54] staff presentations.

[36:56] >> Sure. Thank you. Um, so we talked about

[36:59] this last month at work session. This is

[37:02] um something that our legal team

[37:06] discovered that we are out of compliance

[37:09] with state and federal laws on this

[37:12] subject.

[37:14] What this um proposed code amendment

[37:18] would do would

[37:20] first of all replace the definition of

[37:23] just group home to um

[37:27] community residential home and then add

[37:29] a number of other definitions for

[37:32] different categories of group home. It

[37:34] would also allow

[37:36] the group home as byite use in a number

[37:40] of additional zone districts as is

[37:44] required because um basically any zone

[37:47] district that allows single family

[37:49] residential as used by right has to

[37:51] allow group homes as well. And then the

[37:54] other thing it

[37:56] um that is important to note is they

[38:00] still have to go through any process

[38:01] that would be required for multif family

[38:03] residential or single family residential

[38:05] for permitting. And we also still have

[38:08] authority over um any other municipal

[38:12] code requirements. There are also

[38:13] relevant state and federal permitting

[38:15] and licensing requirements. And so if

[38:17] they don't meet that, then we'd still

[38:19] have a control except [clears throat]

[38:21] deny a permit until they get that. Um,

[38:26] and again, since this is bringing us

[38:28] into compliant with compliance with

[38:31] state and federal laws,

[38:33] uh, I recommend approval of this

[38:37] ordinance for adoption. Um, but if you

[38:40] have any questions for us,

[38:43] can I wonder will do our best to answer

[38:45] it.

[38:47] >> [clears throat]

[38:47] >> So this is from our discussion at our

[38:50] last meeting. So it's to clean up what

[38:52] we didn't have there more or less.

[38:54] >> Exactly. Yeah. And at [clears throat]

[38:55] the last meeting was just the work

[38:57] session. So this is taking action.

[39:01] >> Okay. Anybody have any questions?

[39:03] >> I have a curious question more than

[39:07] meaningful question. Um,

[39:10] is there a reason why uh the individual

[39:14] residential service and support settings

[39:16] has an acronym in the other? No.

[39:20] >> I just thought it was funny.

[39:21] >> Uh, where on your So, it says proposed

[39:24] changes and you list all the things.

[39:26] >> Oh, and the staff me.

[39:28] >> Uh, yes.

[39:28] >> It's also in the ordinance. Like I just

[39:30] pulled it from the ordinance.

[39:31] >> Yeah, I think it's there too. like it

[39:32] says individual residential services and

[39:35] support setting and then in parenthesis

[39:37] IRSS setting. So, I just thought it was

[39:40] curious that what there was a specific

[39:43] difference,

[39:44] >> you know? I think it was uh Carmen

[39:47] feeling lazy when she was writing this

[39:49] and saying, "Okay, I I

[39:51] >> I'm fine with writing out recovery

[39:53] residents, but once I get to individual

[39:56] residential, I just want to have to type

[39:58] out

[39:58] >> because it's so long." Perfect.

[39:59] >> Yeah, that makes sense.

[40:00] >> I mean, some of the others are quite

[40:02] long as well, of course. Group home for

[40:03] persons with behavioral or mental health

[40:05] disorders.

[40:06] >> Yeah. Well, it's [laughter]

[40:07] drafter's prerogative, I think.

[40:11] >> I have a question there, too.

[40:15] What behavioral or mental health

[40:18] activities are there that don't involve

[40:21] violent offenses?

[40:25] » Well, I don't think we define

[40:31] it might be more for you, but

[40:33] >> um well, let's see. It's at the statute.

[40:35] So

[40:36] >> my guess is that it's al it deals with

[40:39] like developmental disabilities and

[40:41] things like that as well.

[40:48] » Yeah. I mean could be really any mental

[40:51] health disorder.

[40:53] So would you like I guess that would be

[40:56] covered that would be what would cover

[40:58] things like one or more substantial

[41:00] disorders of the cognitive valitional or

[41:02] emotional processes that grossly impairs

[41:05] judgment or capacity to recognize

[41:07] reality or to control behavior.

[41:17] And if somebody gets out of hand,

[41:21] they call for the police.

[41:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. And it has to be licensed by

[41:27] the Colorado Department of Public Health

[41:29] and Environment. So they have

[41:33] requirements and there are requirements

[41:34] for staff for that. It appears.

[41:37] >> That was my next question. Recovery

[41:39] residents have a full-time counselor or

[41:42] somebody living on the premises. Yeah,

[41:46] there's um

[41:49] there's pretty strict requirements for

[41:51] licensing for some of these where there

[41:53] are like on-site support staff and in

[41:56] some cases there's requirements for like

[42:00] certain types of meetings or like

[42:01] educational things or that sort of group

[42:05] additional like mental health care

[42:08] people that [clears throat] come in. And

[42:10] so like our ordinance would cover all

[42:13] that because we just default to the

[42:15] state qualified licensing requirements.

[42:21] » And I have one number of questions to

[42:25] uh down farther in there. I can tell you

[42:29] what page it's on 20.

[42:32] >> Okay. Um,

[42:34] it says something about me neighborhood

[42:37] notification for a building that houses

[42:40] people with behavioral disabilities.

[42:46] » It's like

[42:48] letter C maybe.

[42:51] >> Yeah. So, so the idea would be

[42:55] if someone has an existing single family

[42:58] home or duplex or multif family or

[43:00] whatever that meets the that already

[43:02] exists and you say, "Hey, I'm going to

[43:05] convert this from chain of use, I guess,

[43:08] from single family residence to

[43:12] whichever type of group home,

[43:16] then

[43:18] they would you just go through like

[43:20] building permit or change abuse process,

[43:22] there wouldn't be a notification to the

[43:24] neighbors that says, "Hey, by the way,

[43:26] now there's going to be this type of

[43:28] group home next to you." However, if you

[43:31] had a vacant lot and someone proposed

[43:35] new residence,

[43:37] they might need a final development plan

[43:39] and that that would be our land use

[43:40] process that would require public

[43:42] notice.

[43:43] >> Yeah. So the use itself doesn't require

[43:45] public notice but the act of creating

[43:49] that use if it requires variances or you

[43:53] know things like that would have public

[43:56] notice. Basically like they are not

[43:59] subject to any additional notice

[44:02] requirement that is not already in our

[44:04] code for anyone else.

[44:12] » Right. And we're not I would say we as

[44:16] city staff are not recommending this

[44:18] language because we for any reason other

[44:22] than this is the language that's

[44:23] required by state or federal law.

[44:32] Okay. Any other questions? If not obtain

[44:37] a motion

[44:39] in a second. Thank you. Did we

[44:41] >> I think we closed it, didn't we?

[44:43] >> Oh,

[44:44] >> and did we ask for public comment? Thank

[44:45] you.

[44:46] >> Yeah. Here.

[44:46] >> Yes. You asked for public comment, but

[44:48] the hearing is not closed yet.

[44:49] >> Oh, sorry. Okay. Now, I'll close the

[44:52] public hearing and it's 6:28

[44:56] p.m.

[44:59] I thought we did discussion. Okay. Now,

[45:03] a motion. Sorry, you just did it, you

[45:05] know.

[45:08] Um,

[45:09] go ahead.

[45:10] >> You can take turns. [laughter]

[45:13] >> I'll make a motion to recommend approval

[45:14] ordinance number 17, series 2026.

[45:19] >> Sure,

[45:21] I'll second it.

[45:23] >> Any other discussion?

[45:26] Roll call.

[45:27] >> Chuck Howard,

[45:28] >> yes.

[45:29] >> Judy Murphy,

[45:30] >> yes.

[45:31] >> Vice Chair Ursula Krule,

[45:33] >> yes.

[45:33] >> Chair Cindy Olsen,

[45:35] >> yes.

[45:36] Okay, motion carries.

[45:41] Okay, next item on the agenda is old

[45:44] business.

[45:45] >> I don't have any old business today.

[45:48] >> Okay,

[45:49] any questions on old business?

[45:53] >> Okay, we'll adjourn the meeting at 6:29

[45:57] p.m. Gez.

[45:59] >> Thank you.

[46:00] >> Public hearings and

[46:03] part of the night wonder.

[46:05] >> [laughter]

[46:07] >> Best part of the night for you.

[46:10] >> Hi everyone. Nice.

[46:11] >> Nice.

[46:12] >> You might wonder. So now we'll go into

[46:15] the work session.

[46:19] » There's three. There are three items.

[46:22] I'm hoping they're all pretty quick.

[46:25] >> Um does anyone need a break or anything

[46:27] or should we just

[46:28] >> keep her going?

[46:29] >> Okay. Okay. So, this first one

[46:32] >> um I've been dealing with this

[46:36] recently. So, you know, we have non a

[46:39] section of the code that has

[46:40] non-conforming buildings and

[46:41] non-conforming uses. So, basically like

[46:44] let's say you have a dentist office in

[46:48] R1 zoning. It's but it is existed that

[46:51] can remain as long as it stays that way

[46:53] but it's not performing use. Similarly,

[46:55] let's say I have my house and it's only

[46:57] one foot from the property line and the

[46:59] setback's 5T. That's a non-conforming

[47:02] building. And so, um, talking with

[47:05] Carmen, the way that our code is written

[47:07] right now,

[47:10] don't explicitly have the allowance

[47:13] for someone to expand their building.

[47:16] And so, for example, you know, you have

[47:18] a building that's right on the property

[47:20] line.

[47:22] Obviously, you can't expand it

[47:25] off your property, but on the other side

[47:27] of your property, say you have 50 feet

[47:28] of space, the way our code reads is we

[47:31] wouldn't allow that building to be

[47:33] expanded even if the new addition is

[47:36] compliant with setbacks and height and

[47:39] all of that. And so that could be fine

[47:43] if we want to take that approach. But

[47:46] what a lot of other places do is they

[47:48] say you can't really change or expand

[47:51] your encroachment in that makes it

[47:53] non-conforming. But if you want to do an

[47:55] addition to your house or your business

[47:58] and the addition meets all the current

[48:00] requirements, you can do that. And so I

[48:03] wanted to bring this to to you all to

[48:05] say does it make sense for us to

[48:08] explicitly add that allowance so that

[48:11] people can expand or change their homes

[48:13] as long as the new work meets current

[48:15] requirements. Um if we don't do that

[48:18] then you know folks are kind of just

[48:21] stuck with the square footage they have

[48:24] whatot or could do a addition that's

[48:28] detached or something like that. I don't

[48:30] think there's a reason not to do it

[48:33] because they have to meet the building

[48:35] requirements and code requirements

[48:36] anyway. Um, and it could be a simple

[48:40] like you said, adding a bedroom or isn't

[48:43] it to fix something that if it

[48:47] >> fell apart or like the gentleman that

[48:49] was here collapsed, he'd be able to

[48:51] remix it? So, so he could So, right now

[48:55] the non-conforming

[48:57] section of the code allows you if you're

[48:59] building that's non-conforming is

[49:01] damaged or destroyed,

[49:03] >> you can rebuild it exactly like for

[49:06] like, but you couldn't change the

[49:09] footprint of that building. You'd have

[49:11] to rebuild it like for like. You

[49:12] couldn't like say, "Well, my building

[49:14] just collapsed in a snowstorm. Why don't

[49:16] I expand it build it better?" like, you

[49:20] know, build it back further into the

[49:21] lot, keep the original footprint plus

[49:24] expand it to to give some additional

[49:27] square footage. And, you know, most of

[49:29] our lots were quite small, but you could

[49:31] foresee a scenario where someone has a

[49:33] little house and there's room to expand

[49:35] in the back, but it's too close to the

[49:36] front. Now, they have three kids and now

[49:38] they have four kids. We really want that

[49:40] other bedroom.

[49:42] Um, this kind of clarifies that you can

[49:45] do that addition.

[49:47] I think it's something we should do.

[49:49] What's anybody else's?

[49:51] >> Okay. Um

[49:53] thing and um and I've been thinking

[49:56] about this since we've been talking

[49:58] Carlson and all those things. Um my only

[50:02] thought about this is that it will be

[50:04] nice in a way and I don't know if I feel

[50:07] like it will be way too hard to

[50:10] even figure out how to approve or not

[50:12] things. But

[50:14] my thought is like if we have a

[50:16] situation like that in a place and they

[50:18] do want to expand on this one area that

[50:20] they can't but everybody else and for

[50:23] example their neighbors are and we think

[50:25] that it would look better if they all

[50:29] were unifor

[50:34] to decide on that. Um

[50:37] >> but they could because they could appeal

[50:39] for a a variance if they wanting to

[50:41] build something. So that is an opt an

[50:44] option

[50:45] >> that would be an option but I would say

[50:47] with variances

[50:49] like

[50:49] >> if we already have rules that say no

[50:51] then the variance probably can go around

[50:53] again rules

[50:54] >> like could can't do uh

[51:00] » well can't do a variance for

[51:02] non-conforming

[51:03] >> I think what you could say well I think

[51:07] it would be hard to meet the criteria

[51:10] because like you say well you already

[51:11] have an 800 foot house or a thousand

[51:13] square foot house or in Carlson's case

[51:16] you have a 20,000 foot building or

[51:18] whatever it is like what's the need for

[51:21] a variance you already have a usable

[51:24] house that's been there for 100 years so

[51:28] I don't know that I mean reasonable to

[51:31] let it me personally think it's

[51:33] reasonable to let someone expand but um

[51:37] >> I was thinking more on a house not

[51:39] Carlson

[51:40] >> but Carlson I think is Actually, a

[51:41] reasonable point to bring up is like,

[51:44] you know, Carlson is like this C-shape,

[51:46] let's say, you know, three-sided, but

[51:48] there's that whole bit in the middle.

[51:49] This would never work for the parking,

[51:51] but let's say someone came in and said,

[51:53] "Well, I want to keep the existing

[51:55] building, but I want to do an addition

[51:58] in the middle of the open space where

[52:00] the playground used to be, so I can get

[52:03] extra usable space."

[52:06] as it's written now, you couldn't do

[52:09] that expansion because

[52:12] your building's not performing because

[52:14] it doesn't meet current setbacks. It's

[52:15] built all the way up to like 13th

[52:17] Avenue. So, you couldn't even do your

[52:19] compliant addition in the middle where

[52:21] the playground used to be. But what this

[52:24] code amendment would do would be to say,

[52:26] okay, well, now you can do your little

[52:28] addition in the middle as long as you

[52:30] meet all the requirements for parking

[52:31] and whatnot,

[52:32] >> but still have to meet the requirements.

[52:34] So,

[52:35] >> right. So, so that is kind of a real

[52:36] world example.

[52:38] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[52:40] >> Yeah. No, I mean they did this for sure.

[52:41] I just was wondering if there's any

[52:44] other ways to make it a little flexible

[52:46] circum circumstances, but also I don't

[52:49] feel like we shouldn't do this just

[52:51] because

[52:53] you're just saying how can it work?

[52:55] >> Yeah, if it would be possible, you know,

[52:57] blue mainly.

[53:00] Well, and thinking of Carlson again, if

[53:03] we did this code amendment and then they

[53:06] someone came in and said, "I want to

[53:07] keep the building, but I want to

[53:08] increase the height of story." They

[53:10] still couldn't do that because you

[53:13] [clears throat] can't like let's say on

[53:14] 13th they said, "I'm going to go up a

[53:16] level." Like, it doesn't meet the

[53:18] setback. So, you can't add a level that

[53:20] doesn't meet the setbacks because you're

[53:22] expanding the encroachment in that

[53:24] setback area. So like they couldn't just

[53:26] say we're going to add a story and leave

[53:28] the footprint the same because that

[53:30] still expands the approachment. They'd

[53:31] have to expand the building somewhere

[53:34] that meets the requirements. So it kind

[53:37] of protects neighbors, I guess, from

[53:39] someone saying, "I want to take my

[53:40] building that's one foot from your

[53:42] property and make it 35t tall,"

[53:46] >> which I've had people say before. They

[53:49] actually could do a variance in limited

[53:52] circumstances depending on what the ask

[53:55] is.

[53:56] >> Okay.

[53:56] >> So there I mean it is available but

[53:59] variance language we have isn't the best

[54:01] but

[54:02] >> there's a process

[54:04] >> and I guess we could they could use

[54:08] like a architecture character or with

[54:10] neighborhood character or something

[54:12] >> a story. Um not necessarily just because

[54:16] if they're like they come in there the

[54:18] reason is like well this houses would uh

[54:20] are like that and yeah we think it will

[54:23] look good and will continuity of the

[54:25] design of the street or the block or

[54:27] whatever.

[54:28] >> So not yes and no because the variance

[54:33] process you have to meet a bunch of

[54:36] different criteria.

[54:38] >> Okay.

[54:38] >> And some are that.

[54:40] >> Okay. But others are like like the

[54:42] classic one is you'll suffer a hardship

[54:45] if you can't do this the way you want to

[54:49] do it. That's usually pretty tough to

[54:51] prove.

[54:52] >> Okay.

[54:52] >> But uh unless you like you never know,

[54:55] you know, like if you have vacant lot

[54:57] like this is one I think we have a few

[54:58] vacant lots that are really tiny and

[55:00] they're vacant and it's like you can't

[55:02] build a house on that lot without

[55:05] getting the variance because

[55:07] >> the setbacks.

[55:08] >> It's Yeah. because the setbacks take up

[55:10] all except for like 10 feet of the

[55:12] space. So like that's the one where

[55:13] clearly there would be a hardship of not

[55:15] being able to develop at all

[55:18] and we've approved some variances board

[55:21] has for sheds quite frequently and it's

[55:24] just because lots are small and houses

[55:26] tend to be small. They've said that it's

[55:28] a hardship not to be able to store

[55:29] things securely and there's not enough

[55:31] storage space in the the house.

[55:33] >> Are you getting people asking about

[55:35] this? Well, it's come up a couple of

[55:37] times actually recently with building

[55:40] permits.

[55:40] >> Okay. So,

[55:42] and I'd never really I wouldn't be

[55:45] surprised if permits have been approved

[55:47] in the past and it's just, you know,

[55:49] kind of by mistake. But now is the time.

[55:52] Fix it, I guess, because there's just

[55:56] from like doing kind of an initial

[55:58] search, I'd guess there's a third of

[56:01] houses in town

[56:03] are not conforming because of just the

[56:06] size of lots.

[56:08] And so people if if we take a stance you

[56:12] can't do it and we don't kind of clarify

[56:14] that you can do it then a lot of people

[56:17] are not able to really do much with

[56:19] their property without trying for a

[56:21] variance.

[56:22] >> So what do you just do a code amendment

[56:24] for this?

[56:24] >> Yeah this would be a code amendment and

[56:26] really it would kind of just be adding

[56:28] like that one sentence or something

[56:30] similar to it that's kind of at the

[56:32] bottom. You just add a sentence that

[56:35] says compliant

[56:38] enlargements

[56:40] are permitted basically.

[56:44] So I'll if if direction is move forward

[56:48] and I'll bring it to council and then

[56:49] we'll have pretty simple ordinance for

[56:52] you to review in the near future.

[56:55] >> Amen.

[56:58] >> Now the next one is the lighting. Oh my

[57:00] gosh, there was so much paper.

[57:03] >> Yeah, I I tried not to make it too much,

[57:05] but I I wanted you guys to have

[57:08] >> some examples to look at.

[57:10] >> So, when you looked at these examples,

[57:12] what is the first pick of

[57:16] the examples?

[57:17] >> Well, the I think the question that Nick

[57:19] wanted to present tonight was, do you

[57:22] have a preference? And I would say Aspen

[57:25] is by far the most detailed, right?

[57:27] that's like 20 something pages long of

[57:29] just dark or 23 pages about their dark

[57:32] sky and they set up really specific

[57:35] circumstances and different lighting

[57:36] zones and all this stuff.

[57:38] >> Um,

[57:40] and it's really really detailed. Then

[57:42] Littleton is like kind of a medium

[57:44] amount of detail and it gets into a lot

[57:46] of

[57:49] maximum lumens and needs for lighting

[57:52] plans and um things like that. And then

[57:57] John'stown still requires downcast cut

[58:01] off fixtures that are shielded. It has

[58:03] limits. It has a color temperature

[58:06] rating, but

[58:08] that's kind of it, you know.

[58:11] The other thing was that I think is

[58:13] important to note is Aspen had a

[58:16] basically said

[58:18] this applies to everyone existing single

[58:21] family homes future single family homes

[58:23] existing businesses future businesses

[58:26] and everyone has five years to comply.

[58:28] So you know you have a motion sensor

[58:31] light that's too bright you have five

[58:32] years to buy a new one at your single

[58:34] family home. Um, Johntown just basically

[58:38] said just applies to new construction

[58:42] and in fact, I'm pretty sure only

[58:44] applies to the significant upgrades to

[58:48] existing lighting,

[58:50] >> right? And it would

[58:52] apply to like a new single family home,

[58:54] but like if you did an addition to your

[58:57] existing single family home, you don't

[58:58] have to change anything ever. And so

[59:03] I think it's like Aspen is a official

[59:06] dark sky like international dark sky

[59:10] community.

[59:11] >> Johntown's not and it's just I think

[59:15] with direction on how detailed we want

[59:17] to get at it. Then Nick and I can work

[59:20] on like actually presenting an ordinance

[59:22] with

[59:24] >> the the one thing I actually found

[59:26] interesting is obviously John'stown is

[59:30] the simplest one. So you'd think all

[59:32] right maybe that's the oldest one.

[59:34] They're actually the most recent po that

[59:37] kind of maybe two three months ago I

[59:39] think. Okay. So,

[59:40] >> so when we talked about it one time like

[59:44] so new buildings or new developments

[59:46] that we've had there's a international

[59:51] sky ordinance or something.

[59:54] So, it sounds like Aspen might have

[59:56] taken a lot of that because you said you

[59:58] used the word international. you know

[1:00:00] how there's like the international

[1:00:02] building codes

[1:00:04] um which I don't know if we need to do

[1:00:08] that like Aspen did. I mean it's not

[1:00:11] like we have a whole lot of out of

[1:00:13] compliance here already.

[1:00:16] I mean is there some annoying stuff out

[1:00:19] there that people notice? I think

[1:00:22] probably just the east commercial

[1:00:25] building

[1:00:27] and the McDonald

[1:00:28] >> which a lot of their things that they

[1:00:30] would say is probably because of safety

[1:00:32] and parking and stuff

[1:00:34] >> which is a different animal than

[1:00:36] residential

[1:00:37] >> right but these would like going forward

[1:00:40] if we passed honestly it looks like any

[1:00:43] of them they establish a 20 foot height

[1:00:45] limit for polemounted fixtures so if you

[1:00:48] wanted a

[1:00:49] >> new stuff

[1:00:50] >> a new huge McDonald's sign can only be

[1:00:53] 20 feet tall.

[1:00:54] >> You couldn't have it be guessing as

[1:00:57] close to 50 feet tall right now.

[1:00:59] >> Well, I think we already have that down

[1:01:01] there that they can't put tall ones in

[1:01:04] unless they're already existing,

[1:01:06] >> right?

[1:01:07] >> So, that's kind of addressed already. I guess my thought is a combination of

[1:01:15] the Littleton and the

[1:01:19] >> Johnson.

[1:01:21] >> I think that's doable.

[1:01:23] >> And

[1:01:24] >> unless there's something good out of

[1:01:26] this. This was hard to read.

[1:01:30] I feel like the um

[1:01:33] enforcement of the Aspen ordinance would

[1:01:36] be a bit of an undertaking,

[1:01:38] >> but I think the one good thing from that

[1:01:40] is

[1:01:42] do we want it to um

[1:01:47] >> do do we

[1:01:48] >> have time like well do we care if about

[1:01:54] requiring existing properties to get

[1:01:56] into compliance?

[1:01:58] I I in a way think it would be nice for

[1:02:02] the community,

[1:02:05] but it's hard to make people do stuff

[1:02:10] and then

[1:02:12] >> how do you get them to do it and you

[1:02:15] know

[1:02:15] >> Yeah.

[1:02:17] >> make it happen every person to court

[1:02:20] basically,

[1:02:21] >> right? Um

[1:02:23] >> pestering them.

[1:02:24] >> Yeah.

[1:02:25] >> Or you just annoy them. But I think

[1:02:27] having something in place that people

[1:02:29] really know about if there's a way for

[1:02:31] them to know about it. So where you're

[1:02:34] going to replace an outdoor light,

[1:02:36] you're going to run to Home Depot, it'll

[1:02:38] make you sit there and think that I'm

[1:02:41] going to be compliant with what what the

[1:02:44] city has because I'm a good neighbor.

[1:02:47] >> Yeah.

[1:02:47] >> Um

[1:02:48] >> Right. But to put a time frame on it, I

[1:02:51] kind of like it, but then I don't like

[1:02:53] the fact that you have to tell people

[1:02:55] and five years

[1:02:58] seems too short,

[1:03:00] you know?

[1:03:01] >> Sure.

[1:03:02] >> Especially in times like today, a lot of

[1:03:04] people are they really remodeling and

[1:03:06] doing stuff?

[1:03:08] Um, right. So to put a time limit,

[1:03:12] I don't know. That's just my thought.

[1:03:15] Um,

[1:03:17] didn't it wasn't it this one I was

[1:03:19] talking to you about with Summit County

[1:03:21] where they're all going to this stuff

[1:03:23] too.

[1:03:24] >> Summit County has a pretty detailed one.

[1:03:26] I'd say it's not quite Aspen, but it's

[1:03:29] more than Littleton. And the problem I

[1:03:32] had when I worked there, which I'm sure

[1:03:33] is still an issue, is that people would

[1:03:35] constantly call and be like, I don't

[1:03:37] like my neighbor's light. They installed

[1:03:39] a new bulb. It's too bright and you need

[1:03:42] to like fix it. So then you have to call

[1:03:45] them and say, "Hey, I have to go look at

[1:03:47] your light. It's out of compliance. You

[1:03:48] have to fix it." And they it's a whole

[1:03:50] ordeal of just really it's just two

[1:03:52] neighbors who don't like each other.

[1:03:54] >> Well, it's I have to say it's gotten

[1:03:56] hard to buy lights. Have you gone and

[1:03:58] bought light bulbs lately?

[1:04:00] >> You go in and it's warm light or what's

[1:04:03] the other one called? Warm and then

[1:04:05] bright or whatever, but when you buy the

[1:04:08] warm, it's still not that warm yellow

[1:04:10] like it used to be. It's still bright.

[1:04:13] Yeah,

[1:04:14] >> everything's like LED these days.

[1:04:16] >> It's like, wow. You put it in your

[1:04:18] bathroom and you walk in and it's like,

[1:04:19] "Oh, geez, that's too bright."

[1:04:22] >> It's true. You have to buy

[1:04:24] >> So, I can see for out outside fixtures,

[1:04:26] that's a tough one because if you've got

[1:04:29] the white bright one, your neighbor is

[1:04:31] going to get annoyed, but yet you bought

[1:04:33] a soft one,

[1:04:34] >> right?

[1:04:35] >> Yeah.

[1:04:35] And that's where I think, you

[1:04:37] know, if someone just replaces a light

[1:04:39] bulb saying, "Sorry, now you're out of

[1:04:42] compliance." It's like a nightmare

[1:04:44] because the solution is you unscrew the

[1:04:46] light bulb and then you just screw it

[1:04:48] back. Like you can't take someone to

[1:04:50] court for installing too bright of a

[1:04:52] light bulb and then just taking it out

[1:04:54] and putting back in. You know, it would

[1:04:56] be a nightmare.

[1:04:58] >> I don't know what somebody else's

[1:04:59] thought on combination of the two.

[1:05:03] I like the principles that hman uses. I

[1:05:07] definitely wouldn't want us to be super

[1:05:10] specific about

[1:05:12] anything general necessarily. Um

[1:05:16] I do think that

[1:05:20] maybe here the the what do you call it

[1:05:23] here the different areas

[1:05:27] zones.

[1:05:28] >> Yeah. um thinking historic district, you

[1:05:33] know, it's like a different

[1:05:35] situation that by the park, right? Like

[1:05:39] there's people here hang out a little

[1:05:41] later like by CCRC usually there's

[1:05:44] people but I don't know I'm just feeling

[1:05:46] like we could have different zones

[1:05:50] unless he's thinking that we should we

[1:05:52] need to

[1:05:53] >> just that yeah that's doable. I mean if

[1:05:56] you look at little tense on page five of their stuff,

[1:06:03] they speak about different standards for

[1:06:06] downtown

[1:06:08] and the South Plat River environment,

[1:06:10] whatever that means to them. So, I I

[1:06:14] think that's something we could look at.

[1:06:17] >> You could also break it up potentially

[1:06:19] by residential or park area versus like

[1:06:22] commercial Yeah. area. That's a little

[1:06:24] tough though because you have some

[1:06:26] commercial mixed in with residential and

[1:06:29] then it's true. Do you start a

[1:06:32] >> feud within town like well that guy gets

[1:06:34] to and I don't.

[1:06:36] >> True.

[1:06:37] >> I mean new construction absolutely.

[1:06:39] Yeah.

[1:06:39] >> Um

[1:06:40] >> I think that's the real goal that easily

[1:06:43] gets solved by passing any of these.

[1:06:46] It's just they all like that was my big

[1:06:48] takeaway is the Aspen's a whole

[1:06:50] different league. But the other ones,

[1:06:51] it's just how you handle existing

[1:06:55] things.

[1:06:55] >> Well, and it could be any

[1:06:58] anybody that comes in for a building

[1:07:00] permit, anything like that. It could

[1:07:03] apply to these um dwelling changes,

[1:07:09] non-conforming like we just did. I mean,

[1:07:11] you could put

[1:07:13] pretty much everything into it except

[1:07:15] for trying to enforce existing,

[1:07:20] >> right? Yeah. If you're not doing

[1:07:21] anything and you're not changing

[1:07:22] anything, you just

[1:07:25] keep doing what you're doing. It seems

[1:07:27] like it's probably the easiest way of

[1:07:31] >> if they haven't if the neighbors haven't

[1:07:32] hollered yet, they probably won't,

[1:07:35] >> right? True.

[1:07:38] >> Okay. Um the only the other thought I

[1:07:40] have about um this um you mentioned that

[1:07:44] Aspen is a like certified uh dark sky something town.

[1:07:51] >> Um I just wonder if that is something

[1:07:54] that we would ever want to just you know

[1:07:57] throw out there in the community to see

[1:07:59] if people feels like that's something we

[1:08:01] want to be.

[1:08:03] >> Can we do that or are we too close to

[1:08:06] Denver?

[1:08:07] >> Hard to say. I think we have something

[1:08:09] like

[1:08:11] seven or eight in I in the state right

[1:08:14] now. There's only 270ish

[1:08:18] around the entire world.

[1:08:20] >> We could be so special guys.

[1:08:22] >> You guys could be sure [laughter] that

[1:08:24] there's a lot

[1:08:27] >> it's very dark website's not up to date.

[1:08:31] Frisco just became a dark sky community.

[1:08:33] >> Summer County was just passing all

[1:08:36] >> is one. Presto, Norwood, Nuckla, Snow

[1:08:40] Mass, Peyonia, Ridgeway, and West Cliff

[1:08:44] are officially certified dark sky

[1:08:46] communities. Technically, downtown Aspen

[1:08:48] is not. It's old Snow Mass, but I think

[1:08:51] Aspen's I read something they're like

[1:08:53] pushing forward. I guess it has a roof.

[1:08:56] >> And they had a lot of public meetings

[1:08:57] and doing stuff on that for Summit

[1:08:59] County, too.

[1:09:00] >> But I guess to Judy's point, these are

[1:09:03] all quite far from the front range.

[1:09:06] So I don't

[1:09:07] >> So it might not be a thing.

[1:09:09] >> Yeah. I'm just I'm not sure because

[1:09:12] everything that's in the state is like

[1:09:16] west or south of Denver because they

[1:09:19] don't get the light pollution. Maria,

[1:09:21] who used to work for the city, the best

[1:09:23] and brightest fellow, she was a big

[1:09:25] stargazer. So she had all these maps

[1:09:27] that showed like how much light

[1:09:29] pollution was in different places. Ours

[1:09:32] was not great, but you can still see the

[1:09:35] constellations from

[1:09:37] >> I was going to say I didn't think ours

[1:09:38] is that bad at all.

[1:09:42] >> Um, cool. Well, I mean, just throwing

[1:09:43] that out there. If you ever we have a

[1:09:45] community meeting and that's a question

[1:09:47] that you feel like putting in there, I

[1:09:48] don't think, you know, will harm

[1:09:50] anybody. Um,

[1:09:52] >> yeah, that would be a good way of

[1:09:54] encouraging people to

[1:09:56] >> change their lights, right? we're

[1:09:58] pushing for this and it can get us these

[1:10:00] accolades.

[1:10:01] >> Well, I think if they hear about it,

[1:10:02] too, because especially when you look at

[1:10:04] like these two the diagrams on it will

[1:10:09] make you go buy these instead of buying

[1:10:11] these. But you

[1:10:14] know,

[1:10:15] >> I just bought two and I just looked it

[1:10:19] up and I'm within the loom and

[1:10:23] >> Okay. Does that answer?

[1:10:25] >> Yeah. And for the for the ramp up or

[1:10:29] like you know time limit

[1:10:33] >> discussion what I think I'll do is I'll

[1:10:35] just put it in there you guys can see

[1:10:37] what it looks like and then

[1:10:38] >> can always take it out

[1:10:39] >> and in the meantime talk to people ask

[1:10:42] you know your neighbor what would they

[1:10:43] think if somebody did that or

[1:10:45] >> just I'd rather just have it in there so

[1:10:47] you guys can see and then can always

[1:10:49] take it out

[1:10:49] >> but then we can see if there's any

[1:10:51] feedback on um see I'm the type I

[1:10:54] wouldn't have a problem changing

[1:10:55] something to do it. But

[1:10:57] >> one other question I've got

[1:11:00] because it might affect me

[1:11:03] is if they built Soda Creek Highlands,

[1:11:08] all that light's got to come down.

[1:11:11] But we're all below that. They would

[1:11:14] have to abide by what we have. And

[1:11:17] that's the part of the new construction

[1:11:19] you would want

[1:11:21] it the down shadow and it only can go so

[1:11:24] far only so far out. Yeah.

[1:11:28] >> I mean shielded.

[1:11:29] >> That is a good

[1:11:31] >> example.

[1:11:32] >> If they're too clo like if you had a lot

[1:11:35] here and then the next lot was like 100

[1:11:37] feet higher and it was only

[1:11:39] 100 feet away. You'd probably still be

[1:11:42] able to look directly up at a shielded

[1:11:44] cut off fixture. But

[1:11:47] it would be less bright than if

[1:11:50] everything was just shining everywhere.

[1:11:51] So I don't know in your particular in

[1:11:54] that exact example it would be quite

[1:11:56] difficult to

[1:11:58] >> really solve for it but

[1:12:00] >> just get a slingshot

[1:12:02] [laughter]

[1:12:05] » might

[1:12:06] >> yeah I mean there'd be

[1:12:07] >> simple answer

[1:12:09] >> there probably be some help but that

[1:12:11] might be like just a bad situation like

[1:12:14] just like the weird test case

[1:12:17] >> well and I guess theme lights versus

[1:12:19] having like a maximum

[1:12:21] you know, luminosity. I guess it's like

[1:12:24] if you like there's a difference between

[1:12:26] you see it a lot in the Midwest and

[1:12:27] suburban neighborhoods. People put

[1:12:29] candle lights on all of their eaves and

[1:12:31] there's like every three feet they have

[1:12:32] a cand shines down. It's so bright even

[1:12:35] though each one individually is not that

[1:12:37] much. Like there might be some way of

[1:12:39] saying like there's a maximum amount of

[1:12:41] lighting per

[1:12:43] facade or something.

[1:12:45] >> Yeah.

[1:12:46] >> Or even if you're something in it might

[1:12:49] say something if your property is above

[1:12:51] another

[1:12:53] the restrictions might be

[1:12:56] >> sure. Yeah. But I mean, yeah, there's

[1:12:59] all kinds of ways you could deal with

[1:13:00] that because that could happen

[1:13:02] [clears throat] on any of the streets up

[1:13:04] along there, too, right?

[1:13:05] >> Because you've got people downtown Wall

[1:13:07] Street.

[1:13:08] >> Yeah. I think folks folks can see

[1:13:10] Montaigne, you know, from from parts of

[1:13:13] town. Nobody has obnoxious lighting up

[1:13:16] there. But if someone want to install 10

[1:13:18] 10,000 lu light bulbs tomorrow,

[1:13:21] >> hey, I keep trying to put them because

[1:13:23] of the dang animals.

[1:13:26] [laughter]

[1:13:27] >> There's one window on montane that

[1:13:30] there's a certain time of the day that

[1:13:31] it just the light shut

[1:13:34] in my house.

[1:13:35] >> That's the sun reflecting.

[1:13:36] >> Yeah, it is.

[1:13:40] » Watch it be mine. [laughter]

[1:13:44] » All right. Right. Well,

[1:13:45] >> my windows aren't clean enough.

[1:13:47] [clears throat]

[1:13:47] >> Okay,

[1:13:48] >> that all sounds good.

[1:13:49] >> That's a good direction.

[1:13:50] >> Yeah, I think so.

[1:13:52] >> All right. Um, this last one is we

[1:13:56] talked I don't know the middle of this

[1:13:57] year, I guess, about

[1:14:01] potentially changing some parking

[1:14:03] requirements because we had identified

[1:14:05] some uses that seemed like really out of

[1:14:07] whack. And so, and then after the um

[1:14:12] public hearings for the Carlson

[1:14:14] redevelopment, there was some push from

[1:14:16] the community to look at it. And so, it

[1:14:18] was just nice because I was already

[1:14:20] looking at it. So, what I did is I took

[1:14:23] 32 jurisdictions around the state. They

[1:14:26] kind of range in size. I I have Colorado

[1:14:28] Springs and Lammer County in there which

[1:14:30] are big communities but the rest are

[1:14:33] like West Slope, Rocky Mountain Town

[1:14:37] communities that are pretty small. Um I

[1:14:40] included the spreadsheet data in the

[1:14:43] report and uh I also put together some

[1:14:47] like just general info um takeaways. And

[1:14:52] so I think what I wanted to do uh

[1:14:57] tonight is just share a bit of that. And

[1:14:58] just for anyone who's like online, I

[1:15:02] figured you know it's quite interesting

[1:15:04] when you look at the data because you've

[1:15:06] heard in the meeting like for

[1:15:07] residential like just not enough parking

[1:15:10] being provided like maybe they're

[1:15:12] meeting it or they're close to meeting

[1:15:13] it but like that's not enough anymore.

[1:15:15] So, you look at the 32 jurisdictions

[1:15:18] where

[1:15:20] we have a more complicated thing with

[1:15:22] these like two-bedroom units that are

[1:15:24] small versus two-bedroom units that are

[1:15:26] large, three-bedroom units that are

[1:15:28] small, threebedroom units that are

[1:15:29] large. Like, they don't do that anywhere

[1:15:31] else really. Like, it's kind of our own

[1:15:33] unique little thing.

[1:15:35] But when you look at most of the data,

[1:15:36] like for town homes, the average is

[1:15:39] about two parking spaces per unit. For

[1:15:41] studio apartments, we're pretty much in

[1:15:44] line. For one bedrooms, we're pretty

[1:15:46] much in line.

[1:15:49] When you get to like twobedroom and

[1:15:50] three bedrooms,

[1:15:53] we're maybe a little lower than the

[1:15:56] average across other jurisdictions, but

[1:15:58] it's pretty close. You know, like if

[1:16:00] you're building small units, then we're

[1:16:01] definitely low. If you're building

[1:16:03] larger units, then we're right on the

[1:16:05] money. And so,

[1:16:08] um,

[1:16:10] >> which makes you sit there and think, why

[1:16:12] does the square footage count? You're

[1:16:14] the who could you're based on your

[1:16:16] bedrooms, like you said. I think that's

[1:16:19] >> Yeah.

[1:16:20] >> too much. I think the uh idea the idea

[1:16:24] of it is like you have two bedroom

[1:16:26] that's 750 square feet is less likely to

[1:16:29] be

[1:16:30] [clears throat] shared by roommates or

[1:16:32] something like it doesn't I can't think

[1:16:34] of a good reason and we're there's

[1:16:36] really not other examples of people do

[1:16:38] it that way. So, one thing that I'd

[1:16:42] suggest is whatever we do, we just pick

[1:16:46] like a number for those and it doesn't

[1:16:48] matter the size of the two-bedroom unit.

[1:16:50] It's just

[1:16:52] um

[1:16:53] >> I would agree. Clean that up.

[1:16:55] >> And same with three bedroomedroom plus

[1:16:58] um

[1:16:59] the other thing that we don't have but

[1:17:02] other places do is they have a

[1:17:04] requirement for guest parking for

[1:17:07] multifamily. So like if you have a 10

[1:17:10] unit multif family, you have to provide

[1:17:13] an additional

[1:17:15] two guest spaces or something across the

[1:17:17] whole development. Whereas the way our

[1:17:19] code reads now is like guests are just

[1:17:22] lumped in with everything else.

[1:17:25] See, and I think when you have like

[1:17:28] apartment complexes, like let's say if

[1:17:30] that was filled up over there, I think

[1:17:32] that's where guest parking would be

[1:17:34] important because you do you get family

[1:17:37] that comes or somebody comes over,

[1:17:39] everybody's got an assigned parking spot

[1:17:42] and where does your friend park if they

[1:17:45] came over for dinner or something?

[1:17:47] >> I don't think that's out of the norm.

[1:17:49] >> And yeah, and I

[1:17:51] >> apartment complexes. I know like uh the

[1:17:54] fieldhouse they're not doing assigned

[1:17:56] parking spaces. It's just like oh you

[1:17:59] can park you like register your car

[1:18:02] whatever you park wherever but you get a

[1:18:04] certain amount like number of permits or

[1:18:08] whatever but it's for anywhere. And so

[1:18:10] if you're a guest you can there's space

[1:18:13] you can just park right?

[1:18:14] >> There's not space you can't park. Uh but

[1:18:18] yeah, some places just specifically say

[1:18:21] you have to add guest parking. What you

[1:18:23] could also do is just

[1:18:26] make the general parking minimum

[1:18:28] slightly higher

[1:18:30] >> and then that with like say for a

[1:18:32] two-bedroom unit, the average across all

[1:18:34] these other places is 1.77. We could

[1:18:37] make it two spaces per twobedroom

[1:18:40] and then the idea being like you have a

[1:18:43] few extra spaces. So,

[1:18:45] >> so using the fieldhouse as an example,

[1:18:50] >> do they have the exact number of parking

[1:18:52] spots that accommodate the onebedroom,

[1:18:55] the twobedroom, the threebedroom? Did it get done that way? So, there

[1:19:00] isn't extra, but yet

[1:19:02] >> they have a couple extra just because

[1:19:05] they have the space. The idea being like

[1:19:07] depending on what commercial use they

[1:19:09] put in, they have the um

[1:19:12] >> commercial uses as well.

[1:19:14] um

[1:19:15] they they have a few extra spaces to

[1:19:17] accommodate that but without the

[1:19:20] commercial space they probably would

[1:19:22] have hit it exactly and um

[1:19:27] it probably makes more difference as you

[1:19:29] get bigger units right like a onebedroom

[1:19:32] acquiring 1.5 spaces for one bedroom

[1:19:35] which is what we already do

[1:19:38] probably is enough to say well some will

[1:19:40] be shared by a couple some will be just

[1:19:42] a single person. You don't have to

[1:19:45] increase it. I think the

[1:19:49] um

[1:19:52] so I think for tonight like we're not

[1:19:55] deciding anything of course. So I think

[1:19:58] if there's any uh

[1:20:03] suggestions of further research I guess

[1:20:06] like does the idea of guest parking

[1:20:08] sound pretty good? Sounds like requiring

[1:20:12] just changing two-bedroom and

[1:20:14] threebedroom to being just a single

[1:20:16] standard regardless of size is probably

[1:20:18] good. Is there any thoughts on what?

[1:20:22] >> Okay. So, the other thing that threw up

[1:20:25] a red flag to me on this is Riverbend.

[1:20:28] So, if anything, you know, you hear

[1:20:30] people saying, "Okay, we don't have

[1:20:31] enough parking and then we made our

[1:20:33] parking spots smaller, blah, blah." which seems like we're pretty

[1:20:38] close and spot on from what the averages

[1:20:41] have come out to. I was surprised when I

[1:20:43] saw how close we are for it always being

[1:20:46] a topic of discussion with everything.

[1:20:49] >> The thing that caught my attention

[1:20:51] though is with Riverbend, we let them go

[1:20:53] down to that small number because we

[1:20:56] used the

[1:20:59] excuse that they had parking on Colorado

[1:21:02] Boulevard. they now it's now paid

[1:21:05] parking. So, how does that should really

[1:21:09] affect this is not having enough parking

[1:21:13] >> because at the point at that at the time

[1:21:16] we weren't ever thinking that we were

[1:21:18] going to get paid parking down there.

[1:21:19] Well, and they're residents, so they can

[1:21:21] park in paid parking, you know, because

[1:21:25] they have residential permit, right? But

[1:21:27] they'd be competing against during the

[1:21:29] day.

[1:21:30] >> Like they come home and it's a Saturday

[1:21:32] afternoon, they have nowhere to park

[1:21:35] because Right.

[1:21:36] >> Yeah.

[1:21:36] >> Well, it's like

[1:21:37] >> I don't know. It's just something that I

[1:21:38] noticed that it kind of looking back, we

[1:21:41] shouldn't have let it be that low of a

[1:21:43] number, I guess.

[1:21:44] >> Right. But it is interesting because

[1:21:48] not there's not a ton of places in the

[1:21:50] state that are doing affordable housing

[1:21:53] specific,

[1:21:55] but a lot of places

[1:21:59] around the country are doing research on

[1:22:02] affordable units and

[1:22:05] allowing fewer parking spaces per

[1:22:08] bedroom for affordable and for senior

[1:22:11] housing. like the data like Alamosa for

[1:22:14] example if you're doing a unit at 80% of

[1:22:17] median income or less they only require

[1:22:20] half a parking space per studio or one

[1:22:22] bedroom and one parking space for two

[1:22:25] bedrooms and so like that's pretty

[1:22:28] radically different to say we're going

[1:22:30] to really lower it the data which the

[1:22:33] data I have is from like Los Angeles

[1:22:36] County was the big study that they did

[1:22:39] on affordable housing but it does show

[1:22:41] that On average, affordable housing is

[1:22:43] only really requires

[1:22:46] about 30% fewer parking spaces demand

[1:22:50] compared to market

[1:22:51] >> that much smaller.

[1:22:53] >> But [clears throat] then why did we turn

[1:22:55] around and like on the gold rush

[1:22:57] apartments 1.75 spaces

[1:23:01] >> well a unit that's

[1:23:02] >> and we didn't require that. It's just

[1:23:05] what they ultimately

[1:23:06] >> Oh, okay. I thought this is what we

[1:23:08] required. No, these are just what they

[1:23:10] actually have

[1:23:11] >> came out at which are the Aspen Leaf.

[1:23:13] >> So like Aspen Leaf which is down on the

[1:23:15] west end

[1:23:16] >> like

[1:23:18] it's quite old

[1:23:19] >> and I so I went and I counted the number

[1:23:21] of doors and counted the number of

[1:23:23] parking spaces and that's where it

[1:23:25] worked out too which is why I put

[1:23:27] approximately because I don't have their

[1:23:29] plans.

[1:23:30] >> Okay,

[1:23:31] >> because it predates that. the big horn.

[1:23:33] I also did the same thing and big horn

[1:23:36] has quite a lot and I just happen to

[1:23:38] know

[1:23:40] >> I know he's a keeper.

[1:23:41] >> He does. You do your work. I love it.

[1:23:44] >> So So anyway, it's quite a big range. If

[1:23:47] you go to Big Horn, there's never

[1:23:49] issues. You can tell at 1.8 at Aspen

[1:23:52] Leaf, like you can sometimes it does get

[1:23:55] pretty tight down there, but there's so

[1:23:56] much additional street parking that I

[1:23:59] don't think anyone ever throws a fit

[1:24:00] about it. Yeah.

[1:24:02] >> Um my suggestion is that don't change

[1:24:06] parking minimums for affordable housing.

[1:24:09] Like we just whatever it is for market

[1:24:11] rate, we just keep you know like at the

[1:24:14] bottom of the residential bid. I just

[1:24:18] what it could be, you know, it's on like

[1:24:20] page three of the five page item, you

[1:24:23] know, it's single family detached two

[1:24:24] units, single family attached. You just

[1:24:27] simplify it. Two units studio 1.25. that

[1:24:30] already is what's there. One bedroom

[1:24:32] that's what's there. Two bedroom, three

[1:24:34] plus bedroom, it's kind of this range

[1:24:37] and eventually we have to decide what's

[1:24:41] the you know for two bedroom it might be

[1:24:43] two per unit. For threebedroom it might

[1:24:45] be 2.5 per unit

[1:24:47] >> and take out that square footage stuff.

[1:24:50] >> Right. Right. But

[1:24:54] so then for senior, we had talked before

[1:24:57] about actually reducing that to just one

[1:25:00] space per unit because we see even less

[1:25:02] than one space per unit at the existing

[1:25:04] places and it already works pretty well.

[1:25:07] That was talked about like in June or

[1:25:10] something. I don't know if we still have

[1:25:12] thoughts on that. But I guess my

[1:25:14] direction on this one is are there any

[1:25:17] specifics that stand out on how how

[1:25:20] planning commission would want to

[1:25:21] proceed

[1:25:23] residential?

[1:25:27] I to me the residential seems like we're

[1:25:30] kind of right on

[1:25:33] point except for cleaning it up. I mean

[1:25:37] and you talk about uh getting rid of the

[1:25:39] square footage. Yeah, it's whether you

[1:25:42] have a onebedroom, twobedroom,

[1:25:43] threebedroom

[1:25:45] compared to square footage because

[1:25:49] it's how many people are living there. I

[1:25:51] mean, you don't want to get into how

[1:25:52] many people are living there.

[1:25:54] >> If you have a threebedroom, you're just

[1:25:56] kind of assuming three drivers or

[1:26:01] >> Yeah.

[1:26:02] >> You know,

[1:26:02] >> right? Well, like based on how our

[1:26:05] current code is written, my thought

[1:26:06] would be my thought would be personally

[1:26:10] we just go with the bigger number that's

[1:26:12] already in the code. So twobedroom

[1:26:15] becomes 1.75

[1:26:17] per twobedroom. Threebedroom becomes 2.5

[1:26:20] per threebedroom.

[1:26:22] >> But I'm wonder because then that pretty

[1:26:23] much matches. In fact, that would make

[1:26:25] three bedrooms

[1:26:27] >> more than the average. But I don't know

[1:26:30] whether like for two bedrooms it makes

[1:26:32] more sense to just make it like one

[1:26:34] space per unit, one per bedroom and make

[1:26:37] it two

[1:26:39] >> instead of 1.75,

[1:26:41] >> right?

[1:26:42] >> You know, if if you had a 50 unit

[1:26:47] complex, that would be a difference of

[1:26:49] like 12 parking spaces.

[1:26:53] [clears throat]

[1:26:54] And we do have the option of like the uh

[1:26:58] the fee loop, right?

[1:27:00] >> For the downtown area,

[1:27:03] >> it doesn't currently apply to like the

[1:27:04] east end or the west end.

[1:27:06] >> You also have the ability to submit like

[1:27:08] a detailed parking study if you disagree

[1:27:11] with our table

[1:27:13] >> and then we would assess whether it's

[1:27:15] reasonable

[1:27:16] >> and that's what we did with Riverbend.

[1:27:18] We let them come to us with

[1:27:23] » which at the time made sense. I mean it

[1:27:25] still does. I don't I've not heard of

[1:27:27] anybody's complaining about

[1:27:29] >> all the times I've been down there.

[1:27:30] There's all those parking underneath.

[1:27:33] >> Is there

[1:27:36] never really looked?

[1:27:38] Yeah.

[1:27:39] >> Yeah. So people don't [clears throat]

[1:27:40] even bother driving in there. They just

[1:27:43] >> drive through the park out next to the

[1:27:44] river.

[1:27:45] >> Yeah. Right. I never see any I never see

[1:27:48] overnight people parking.

[1:27:50] >> No.

[1:27:51] >> On the street either

[1:27:53] >> other than the guy with the beat up

[1:27:55] trailers.

[1:27:57] >> True. That's true.

[1:28:00] >> Which he probably couldn't get down

[1:28:02] underneath,

[1:28:03] >> but still.

[1:28:05] >> And he live there.

[1:28:06] >> I don't know.

[1:28:08] >> It changes time to

[1:28:09] >> Okay. So, it sounds like you've got

[1:28:11] direction on that part. Did you want any

[1:28:13] other comments on some of the other

[1:28:14] parts? I

[1:28:16] >> yeah so for commercial I think it's a

[1:28:19] little more interesting there's only a

[1:28:21] few things that I thought are sort of

[1:28:23] off the averages from other communities

[1:28:26] so really interesting rafting

[1:28:28] headquarters

[1:28:29] >> I got it all

[1:28:32] >> they there's only two play one place

[1:28:35] besides this in the whole state that I

[1:28:37] could find because I spread the search

[1:28:39] beyond the 32 for rafting specifically

[1:28:42] because I could only find one and they

[1:28:45] require one parking space per 200 f feet

[1:28:47] of floor area. We require one space per

[1:28:50] 400 ft of floor area. But um

[1:28:54] I think it's funny that we call out

[1:28:56] rafting headquarters but not like

[1:28:58] outfitting headquarters in general. Like

[1:29:00] it could be also via and ziplining and

[1:29:04] mountain bike tours. And what um I've

[1:29:07] seen elsewhere in the country is they

[1:29:10] say like one space per 400 square feet

[1:29:13] plus like one space per employee or one

[1:29:16] space per number of certain number of

[1:29:18] guests and then that gets at like

[1:29:23] the the issue that I had with rafting

[1:29:26] headquarters is that like some of these

[1:29:27] buildings are like 600 square feet. They

[1:29:29] only have to combine two spaces. Like

[1:29:31] that's fine for what we have now mostly,

[1:29:33] but

[1:29:34] >> someone else came in and said, "We're

[1:29:36] doing a zipline tour and we only have a

[1:29:40] 400 foot building. We only need one

[1:29:41] parking space." That doesn't even cover

[1:29:43] their employees.

[1:29:44] >> No.

[1:29:44] >> So,

[1:29:45] >> I think we need to

[1:29:48] make that better and include the other

[1:29:51] businesses because you never know if

[1:29:53] you're going to get one in town. But

[1:29:56] when you think about it, so they the

[1:29:59] rafters that come in, they're taking up

[1:30:01] a lot of parking spots if they don't

[1:30:04] have I mean the difference property over

[1:30:06] here, they can pull in and park there.

[1:30:08] But then even using that as an example,

[1:30:11] they've got so much other stuff out

[1:30:12] there now that that's taken up parking

[1:30:15] where a person might pull in there and

[1:30:17] not even park there and park on the

[1:30:18] street instead.

[1:30:20] >> [clears throat]

[1:30:20] >> And it's kind of a disservice to the

[1:30:22] rest of the businesses in town that with

[1:30:24] people looking for parking.

[1:30:26] >> Well, and they're gone for hours.

[1:30:29] >> Yeah.

[1:30:30] >> You know, it's not it's not like they're

[1:30:33] shopping and they're parked there for an

[1:30:35] hour or having lunch or something and

[1:30:37] park there for an hour there

[1:30:40] for three, four. I don't

[1:30:42] >> It's not like we have that many places

[1:30:44] that another rafting company can come

[1:30:46] in. It'd probably be more effective in

[1:30:48] the east end.

[1:30:50] But

[1:30:52] yeah, they should provide it on site,

[1:30:55] >> right?

[1:30:55] >> Um,

[1:30:57] with the modifications that we're

[1:30:58] seeking, uh, this would also be kind of

[1:31:01] for new.

[1:31:03] >> Yeah. The way our codes are written now

[1:31:05] is if you have an existing business and

[1:31:09] keep the business license, whatever, you

[1:31:11] don't have to provide.

[1:31:15] So like for example Bojo which but all

[1:31:18] the big restaurants downtown they

[1:31:20] predate 2018 when parking came in. So

[1:31:22] like Bojo doesn't have any off streetet

[1:31:25] parking of their own except for a few

[1:31:27] places at the Robert's brother's garage

[1:31:29] and they

[1:31:31] generate quite a lot of traffic but they

[1:31:33] don't have to do a foo or anything

[1:31:34] because they're an existing business. So

[1:31:36] like the existing rafting headquarters

[1:31:38] don't really have to change

[1:31:40] >> but if someone else comes in or they

[1:31:41] expand the operation to a new place

[1:31:45] and same with any other outfitter which

[1:31:48] I think we should have

[1:31:49] >> and then enforce the land use what

[1:31:52] they're using the land for too

[1:31:53] >> right and so maybe there's another code

[1:31:56] amendment about storage that eventually

[1:31:58] needs to come.

[1:31:59] >> Yes.

[1:32:02] I don't I'm just going to add it to my

[1:32:04] list of potential code amendments to

[1:32:06] start working on um storage.

[1:32:10] >> So I think it should be one space per

[1:32:14] whether it's the 200 or square or 200 or

[1:32:17] 400 but it also it should include their

[1:32:20] employees too.

[1:32:21] >> Sure.

[1:32:22] >> Absolutely.

[1:32:23] >> Do you think it makes more sense for it

[1:32:24] to be based on employees or based on

[1:32:27] guests?

[1:32:28] >> I think employees.

[1:32:30] >> All right. I was thinking employees

[1:32:32] because they will have enough employees

[1:32:34] they can serve all the guests they get.

[1:32:36] So if they get less guests they will

[1:32:37] have less employees. They have more

[1:32:38] guests they'll have more employees,

[1:32:41] >> you know.

[1:32:42] >> I want something they can control on

[1:32:45] both.

[1:32:46] >> I mean I think the square footage of the

[1:32:48] building is silly.

[1:32:49] >> I I

[1:32:51] >> Yeah. I suppose it could be like one

[1:32:52] space per employee plus one space per

[1:32:55] three guests or four guests or whatever

[1:32:57] and just eliminate the square footage

[1:32:58] alto together.

[1:32:59] >> No. But how do you know how many guests

[1:33:03] because they have a maximum limit of

[1:33:05] guests in the building per the building

[1:33:08] code. How do you know how many guests

[1:33:10] can be in them?

[1:33:11] >> And they also have like they have trips

[1:33:13] at 8 n 10. So it's not like a whole

[1:33:17] >> I guess it would be like in their zoning

[1:33:20] application they would put

[1:33:22] >> you can have 10 people in your building.

[1:33:24] So they'd have to have 10

[1:33:27] >> say one spot for every three people. So

[1:33:29] they'd have to have three spots

[1:33:31] >> plus

[1:33:32] >> you have two employees so they'd have to

[1:33:34] have five spots. Yeah,

[1:33:36] >> maybe you do like

[1:33:38] at this time when you're establishing

[1:33:41] your business to get a business license,

[1:33:43] you're saying

[1:33:44] >> and this would be for outfitters. They

[1:33:46] check a box or something like we're

[1:33:48] outfitter and we say what's your at peak

[1:33:51] time, how many guests do you anticipate

[1:33:54] and how many employees do you anticipate

[1:33:56] and we then would take the calculation

[1:33:59] based on their estimated peak. But that

[1:34:02] makes it tough because

[1:34:05] >> they don't know.

[1:34:06] >> What about their capacity

[1:34:09] >> like of the building

[1:34:12] capacity? Yeah. Like here we can only

[1:34:13] have seven so 70 people like if they're

[1:34:16] build you know it kind of kind of takes

[1:34:18] in account the square footage without

[1:34:20] making that the one but based on that

[1:34:23] you know how big they're

[1:34:25] like

[1:34:26] >> if I only had a 400 square foot

[1:34:29] headquarters like only

[1:34:32] Six people could be inside the building

[1:34:33] at a time, but if I just do my little

[1:34:37] >> spiel outside,

[1:34:40] >> then you could still have 50 people go

[1:34:42] on a tour cuz like they have a whole

[1:34:44] >> inside and outside based on on the

[1:34:48] number of wraps that they intend to put

[1:34:51] in the water every day,

[1:34:55] >> right?

[1:34:56] >> And the wraps hold what

[1:34:57] >> I could see, right? people with them or

[1:35:00] >> I mean they must have a business plan

[1:35:02] that says what they need to be able to

[1:35:04] >> but then like if you start off and

[1:35:06] you're just a little guy and then five

[1:35:08] years from now now you've gone from two

[1:35:10] rafts to 20 rafts you still only have

[1:35:12] your

[1:35:15] >> guess that's a good problem

[1:35:17] >> and you're going to want to embellish

[1:35:18] your numbers for your business plan but

[1:35:22] you're going to want to lower that

[1:35:25] number to have your business in

[1:35:29] because you can't do the parking.

[1:35:33] >> Um, you said that you checked other

[1:35:35] outfitters besides rafting.

[1:35:38] >> I think if we're doing

[1:35:40] like

[1:35:41] >> include all of them.

[1:35:42] >> I was thinking instead of just being

[1:35:44] rafting headquarters, it would be like

[1:35:46] outfitting or guiding headquarters and

[1:35:48] then it could be like rafting, ATVs, zip

[1:35:51] lines.

[1:35:54] » You go there, you pay for the service,

[1:35:56] but they take you somewhere else. So,

[1:35:58] it's kind of the same thing.

[1:36:00] >> Yeah.

[1:36:00] >> Um

[1:36:00] >> because right now we only have rafting

[1:36:03] headquarters.

[1:36:05] >> And um so if someone came in and said,

[1:36:09] "Hey, I'm doing mountain bike tours."

[1:36:10] We'd have to just call it like a retail

[1:36:13] or office or something like we couldn't

[1:36:15] call a mountain bike headquarter the

[1:36:16] rafting headquarters. So if if we're

[1:36:18] changing it anyway, we might as well

[1:36:21] change.

[1:36:21] >> I personally think that's the way to go.

[1:36:24] And then we're not singling out one

[1:36:26] group of guides either.

[1:36:28] >> Yeah. And we don't have to keep adding

[1:36:29] more things for specific things. Um my

[1:36:32] uh I was asking if you have checked all

[1:36:34] our fitters because I was thinking if I

[1:36:36] was wondering if any of them

[1:36:40] have their the calculations they

[1:36:42] calculate them differently and we can

[1:36:44] get some ideas.

[1:36:45] >> Be struggling.

[1:36:47] >> Yeah. I can look up like are there not

[1:36:50] specifically rafting outfitters but just

[1:36:52] like the guiding operations what are

[1:36:54] those parking requirements

[1:36:55] >> exactly

[1:36:56] >> and then bring that that back.

[1:37:00] >> Um

[1:37:02] okay great well it sounds like

[1:37:04] everyone's on the same page that we

[1:37:06] could tweak it a little and better

[1:37:08] capture the amount. Um the other one the

[1:37:11] second one there's only four. So, the

[1:37:14] second one is theaters, event center,

[1:37:16] music venue, those sorts of things.

[1:37:18] Right now, it says one space for four

[1:37:19] theater seats. Um, that's actually a

[1:37:23] pretty similar amount to what we see

[1:37:24] everywhere else, but almost everywhere,

[1:37:27] like I think we should just change it to

[1:37:29] per four occupants because

[1:37:31] [clears throat] not every theater will

[1:37:32] have seats,

[1:37:34] >> right?

[1:37:34] >> And so, like right now, well, I've run

[1:37:37] into this. Someone comes and says, "Hey,

[1:37:39] I want to do a theater." And I'm like,

[1:37:40] "Great. You have what's your max

[1:37:42] occupancy?" like 100 and you say, "Okay,

[1:37:44] 25 spaces." And they say, "Well, I don't

[1:37:46] have any seats. It's just standing room

[1:37:47] only. So, it should just be eight

[1:37:49] because it's only 2,000 square feet or

[1:37:52] whatever." So, if we said one per four

[1:37:54] occupants or three occupants or

[1:37:56] whatever,

[1:37:57] >> then that can't argue with anymore. So,

[1:38:01] that'd be a pretty easy change, I think.

[1:38:03] [laughter]

[1:38:05] [clears throat] So,

[1:38:06] >> what happens with the United Senate?

[1:38:09] >> They have no parking. Well, but they'd

[1:38:11] be they're sort of existing that's like

[1:38:14] grandfathered in. But if we had a new

[1:38:16] United Center,

[1:38:18] >> we'd have to do it based on like

[1:38:22] >> I don't know how many people can fit on

[1:38:23] a pew, I guess, right? Quite a

[1:38:25] [laughter] few. Yeah. So, I'm not I'm

[1:38:28] not sure. But yeah, when you look

[1:38:29] around, most of them are like

[1:38:32] when they say one per number of seats,

[1:38:34] it's like pretty commonly

[1:38:38] um

[1:38:40] one per three or one per per four seats.

[1:38:42] So

[1:38:44] seems like it probably covers it. Okay.

[1:38:47] Um the next one is daycarees.

[1:38:50] >> You know, the way we say it in the ski

[1:38:52] industry is one seat, one heartbeat.

[1:38:55] Like people getting on chairs and stuff.

[1:38:57] Yep. So,

[1:38:59] >> yeah. So, I mean

[1:39:00] >> people try everything,

[1:39:03] [clears throat]

[1:39:04] >> right? Well, okay. So, the other one is

[1:39:06] daycare. We don't have a standard for

[1:39:09] daycarees right now, so I probably would

[1:39:11] just use like office use or something.

[1:39:13] Um,

[1:39:15] but what a lot of places do is they do

[1:39:17] like one space per

[1:39:20] like number of children or number of

[1:39:22] employees. So, like some places do one

[1:39:25] space for 10 children, one space for

[1:39:26] eight children. Few other places just

[1:39:29] say like one space per employee for

[1:39:32] who cares. I could also just make it

[1:39:35] like one for 300 to match office uses,

[1:39:38] but it seems wise to create one because

[1:39:40] I know the county is pushing pretty hard

[1:39:43] for daycare. It's like a big need and

[1:39:46] people are establishing it in existing

[1:39:48] neighborhoods who want to make sure it's

[1:39:49] not affecting. But the daycare people

[1:39:53] just drop their kids off and go away for

[1:39:57] the rest of the day. I mean, the parents

[1:39:59] >> and I think um the new rule for teachers

[1:40:04] is

[1:40:05] one teacher per eight students for uh

[1:40:10] daycare of preschool. So one per eight

[1:40:14] number

[1:40:15] >> like one space for eight children

[1:40:16] >> something like that.

[1:40:17] >> Yeah. For for reference, our school

[1:40:22] requirements

[1:40:24] is one space per

[1:40:29] 1.5 spaces per classroom plus one space

[1:40:32] per five seats in an auditorium

[1:40:37] » football or basketball games and things

[1:40:40] like that.

[1:40:41] >> Right? So that's an I mean and I don't

[1:40:44] know how many people fit in the

[1:40:46] classroom, but if our what's our average

[1:40:48] like student teacher ratio? Is it like

[1:40:51] under one and 20?

[1:40:53] >> Yeah,

[1:40:54] >> because if it's like one to 20, then

[1:40:55] that would still be eight. One per eight

[1:40:57] students.

[1:41:00] >> So they're very little classrooms right

[1:41:01] now. But yeah,

[1:41:03] >> 20 I think is the biggest.

[1:41:06] >> Yeah. So So one space per eight. But if

[1:41:10] you know that that's the thing, the one

[1:41:12] to eight would be the way to do it then.

[1:41:14] >> But as soon as you have one more kid, if

[1:41:16] you have nine kids, then you need an

[1:41:17] assistant.

[1:41:18] >> So, they want to keep it at eight pretty

[1:41:21] much for payroll things. Depends.

[1:41:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't know.

[1:41:27] >> I can do a little more research into

[1:41:28] that, but that's one where I think

[1:41:30] adding a standard might make sense so

[1:41:31] that we can kind of because it is being

[1:41:34] encouraged and I think there might be

[1:41:35] some funding available for daycarees in

[1:41:37] the near future. Um,

[1:41:39] >> well, if we're redoing this, now's the

[1:41:41] time to put it in there. We wanted to

[1:41:43] think of

[1:41:44] >> Yeah. And exact. That's my my figure

[1:41:47] because we'll have a code amendment for

[1:41:49] this. Um, the last one I noticed that

[1:41:51] we're like kind of off is fitness

[1:41:55] centers. I mean, we only have the one

[1:41:56] right now, but if someone came in and

[1:41:58] wanted a CrossFit gym or something,

[1:42:01] they'd need one space per 150 square

[1:42:03] feet. Um, pretty much everywhere else

[1:42:06] like that's a lot more restrictive than

[1:42:08] almost everywhere else. Um, I talked to

[1:42:11] Cameron from the rec district and she

[1:42:13] said their max number of users per day

[1:42:17] is about 300 and that averages about 22

[1:42:20] users per hour, but we would require

[1:42:25] under our current code if you had a

[1:42:26] 10,000 foot gym that would be 67 parking

[1:42:29] spaces.

[1:42:31] And so like that feels like a lot of

[1:42:32] parking for a gym. Um, if we dropped it

[1:42:36] to like

[1:42:38] 200 to 300 ft, we might reduce that to

[1:42:41] like 35 to 50 spaces. 35 spaces if it

[1:42:45] was 300 square ft per and that might

[1:42:49] still I don't know. That's just one

[1:42:51] where it was quite off. There was a lot

[1:42:54] of history to that when that was being

[1:42:57] built and they came in for the parking

[1:43:00] because if anything they didn't have

[1:43:03] enough to whatever the requirement was

[1:43:06] at the time.

[1:43:07] >> They don't meet the standard by any

[1:43:08] means, but like I think it's about well

[1:43:11] I don't actually know how big it is,

[1:43:13] >> but you never see it filled up around

[1:43:15] there really. So, I'm almost wondering

[1:43:18] on that back side, is that paid parking

[1:43:21] now

[1:43:22] >> on the south side or on the north side?

[1:43:25] No, that still is unpaid

[1:43:28] >> cuz if anything residents there there

[1:43:32] was a lot of back and forth and then

[1:43:34] they had to get permission which it's

[1:43:37] interesting because I don't know what's

[1:43:38] happened with that is their vans and

[1:43:41] stuff couldn't be parked on the city

[1:43:44] streets because it took up parking. So,

[1:43:46] they were using part of the football

[1:43:48] field,

[1:43:48] >> right,

[1:43:49] >> to park their vans,

[1:43:50] >> and now they're parking them in the city

[1:43:52] parking lot, which that's not cool

[1:43:55] either.

[1:43:56] >> That's it's going away from completely

[1:43:59] what the deal was with them when they

[1:44:01] built it.

[1:44:02] >> So, it's probably a whole thing to

[1:44:04] revisit and see what would make more

[1:44:06] sense.

[1:44:07] >> Yeah. For for them, right? Yeah. Because

[1:44:09] again, like they already exist. We can't

[1:44:12] like renegotiate parking now unless

[1:44:15] there's changes of use and things like

[1:44:16] that. But

[1:44:16] >> but the parking of the vans and stuff,

[1:44:19] >> right? That's true. And I guess that's

[1:44:21] not part of the code amendment, but it's

[1:44:23] something to look into, right? If

[1:44:24] they're taking up like parking spaces

[1:44:26] >> and maybe the city worked to deal with

[1:44:27] them. I don't know. But originally they

[1:44:30] had to do it. They had to park down on

[1:44:32] the ball field, the football field.

[1:44:34] there was a portion of it and that's

[1:44:37] what let us

[1:44:39] >> pass that they had enough parking but

[1:44:43] had we had it less

[1:44:48] » a lesser requirement

[1:44:50] >> right they probably could have done it

[1:44:51] without having to make that deal I don't

[1:44:55] know there's a lot of history there

[1:44:56] >> yeah I mean I don't anticipate any

[1:44:58] >> my brain's not remembering things

[1:45:00] anymore

[1:45:00] >> I don't anticipate like anyone else

[1:45:02] coming in and building something of that

[1:45:03] size or scale, but I could see like

[1:45:06] someone saying, "Oh, I want to do this

[1:45:07] little like CrossFit gym or like yoga

[1:45:10] studio or Pilates or I don't something

[1:45:13] like that." And so one space per 150

[1:45:16] square feet

[1:45:18] during peak hours could be reasonable,

[1:45:20] but like that could also make it very

[1:45:22] difficult because almost all of our

[1:45:24] other like a restaurant standard is only

[1:45:26] one space per 250 square feet. I feel

[1:45:29] like restaurants generate similar

[1:45:32] amounts of patronage to a gym.

[1:45:35] >> So, you're saying you'd like to see like

[1:45:38] one space per under 200 ft?

[1:45:41] >> Well, right now it's one space per 150.

[1:45:44] And I'm thinking I'm wondering if we

[1:45:45] could make it like one space for 250 or

[1:45:48] something and actually reduce that

[1:45:49] parking requirement. I'm happy to leave

[1:45:51] it as it is, but it's one of the it's

[1:45:53] like the one space where we're

[1:45:55] definitely different from the average.

[1:46:00] >> I wonder where where they are at right

[1:46:02] now and see if that is a number that we

[1:46:06] could be happy with. Just be like, well,

[1:46:08] let's just

[1:46:09] >> like look at their square footage

[1:46:10] >> where they actually have right now going

[1:46:12] and if

[1:46:13] >> putting in the rec center.

[1:46:14] >> Yeah, they have right now

[1:46:16] >> because it's way off. But but when you

[1:46:20] look it was overly

[1:46:24] required parking

[1:46:26] cuz you don't ever see it all built up.

[1:46:29] >> I mean they sure they can use the city

[1:46:31] lot but they had to have parking behind

[1:46:34] that building was well that's all

[1:46:36] supposed to be rec center parking.

[1:46:38] >> Sure.

[1:46:38] >> Along the but now that probably changes

[1:46:42] with

[1:46:44] the way the road is on the other side. I

[1:46:45] guess they haven't looked at it.

[1:46:47] >> Yeah. There's quite a lot of additional

[1:46:49] parking now, but the parking on the

[1:46:51] south side of the rec center is paid

[1:46:55] parking and it but it's public. So if a

[1:46:59] resident parks there, they can park for

[1:47:01] free. If it's not a restaurant, they

[1:47:03] pay.

[1:47:04] >> And so

[1:47:06] >> you mean the big lot? Well, just like

[1:47:09] next to the little park that they're

[1:47:13] going to do to the city, there's like 20

[1:47:16] parking spaces adjacent to the park now.

[1:47:18] So, we've increased parking in that area

[1:47:20] by about 20 parking spaces.

[1:47:23] >> Um, which probably helps the rec

[1:47:26] district more than anyone, but

[1:47:29] um well, okay. So, it sounds like

[1:47:32] >> revisit it. I'll revisit it and when I'm

[1:47:34] coming back when I'm ready to come back

[1:47:36] with

[1:47:38] proposed edits I'll have something for

[1:47:41] that

[1:47:42] >> if it's based on

[1:47:43] >> Dan good job

[1:47:44] >> anything gets done

[1:47:46] >> so I guess the last one is is there any

[1:47:48] other things that you want to talk about

[1:47:50] with parking

[1:47:52] >> I actually have a question I'm curious

[1:47:54] what happened with the parking issue

[1:47:57] that the library had that get resolved

[1:47:59] >> they're coming to a work session on the

[1:48:02] 15th

[1:48:03] to talk about like potential

[1:48:06] solutions.

[1:48:07] >> Okay. Oh, for

[1:48:10] >> the library,

[1:48:11] >> it'll be with council. It'll be like a

[1:48:13] council work session item for the

[1:48:14] library to talk about

[1:48:16] potential like either like encroachment

[1:48:18] agreement or like dedicating a few

[1:48:20] spaces as library parking or just like

[1:48:23] turning it back into

[1:48:25] 30 minute parking or something because

[1:48:27] there's been a lot of changes there. But

[1:48:29] I'm not sure where that will go yet.

[1:48:31] >> Okay. But right now as it is, they don't

[1:48:33] have any.

[1:48:34] >> They just have those few spaces north of

[1:48:37] the library which is pretty much used by

[1:48:41] um employees.

[1:48:43] >> It's like to the north. It's like

[1:48:45] between the

[1:48:47] area and then there's like one just like

[1:48:50] 10 minute space for drop off.

[1:48:52] >> Okay.

[1:48:53] >> New two,

[1:48:55] >> but they have no like dedicated on the

[1:48:58] street library park,

[1:48:59] >> right? which they were asking for for

[1:49:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. I thought that was a bummer

[1:49:02] for sure.

[1:49:03] >> Yeah.

[1:49:06] >> Um, how did the meeting go Monday?

[1:49:10] >> Oh, the affordable housing meeting. I

[1:49:12] would say it was like a pretty decent

[1:49:14] turnout. Uh, Luchi was there. Chuck, you

[1:49:16] were there as well, right?

[1:49:17] >> And Judy was there.

[1:49:18] >> Yeah.

[1:49:19] >> So, we had a good good playing.

[1:49:21] >> I think I counted 18 19 something like

[1:49:24] that. and Mike. I mean, yeah, I was

[1:49:26] there and so was Andy and so was Guy and

[1:49:28] so was the town administrator for Empire

[1:49:32] and one of the county commissioners, but

[1:49:33] there was like a

[1:49:36] few people who were just general public

[1:49:42] » that one lady, she might want to be

[1:49:48] » sitting behind. She had a package. I

[1:49:51] don't know if you've noticed, but

[1:49:53] Fieldhouse their rates have changed

[1:49:57] and to me their rates are now

[1:50:00] affordable.

[1:50:03] >> You can you can get a twobedroom for 17

[1:50:05] something.

[1:50:06] >> So for 1,800 a month, a twobedroom, two

[1:50:10] bath,

[1:50:12] >> um washer,

[1:50:14] >> $900 a person. you know,

[1:50:18] we're we're paying people $20 an hour

[1:50:20] and they don't qualify to live in any

[1:50:24] affordable housing because they make too

[1:50:26] much money.

[1:50:27] >> So, that looking at some of the numbers,

[1:50:30] what study was I looking at? Was it the

[1:50:32] one you did or something or what what

[1:50:35] was I looking at? Um, there's a lot of

[1:50:38] affordable stuff that people think isn't

[1:50:41] affordable and they wouldn't qualify

[1:50:45] to live in these affordable places.

[1:50:48] Every what everybody's thinking is

[1:50:50] affordable. It's not realistic,

[1:50:52] >> right? Well, and things have changed a

[1:50:54] lot even in the last decade. like the

[1:50:57] price of a home and your average

[1:50:59] mortgage price on a house been bought in

[1:51:02] 2016

[1:51:04] in a lot of cases is half what it is

[1:51:06] today in either those springs. And so

[1:51:10] for folks who've owned their homes a

[1:51:11] long time or bought pre2020, I think

[1:51:14] you're the

[1:51:16] >> reality of that sort of situation and

[1:51:19] what you would have been renting for at

[1:51:20] that time to now is is very different.

[1:51:24] But

[1:51:25] >> right,

[1:51:27] >> the problem is there isn't affordable

[1:51:29] places to purchase. There's affordable

[1:51:31] places to rent. Right.

[1:51:34] >> Yeah. I think that's the big missing

[1:51:36] piece is how do you get like even if

[1:51:38] it's condos,

[1:51:40] >> you know, if you saw like someone come

[1:51:42] in and say, "Let's build 50 condos." And

[1:51:45] they're all for sale and they're all

[1:51:46] $300,000.

[1:51:48] Like that's creates a home ownership

[1:51:51] opportunity for 50 50 people,

[1:51:53] >> right?

[1:51:54] which is more the direction they should

[1:51:56] be looking is looking at stuff like

[1:51:58] that, not

[1:52:00] >> maybe we need to talk more to Habitat.

[1:52:04] >> Yeah. I mean,

[1:52:05] >> right,

[1:52:05] >> it's Yeah,

[1:52:07] >> it's a Yeah, something like Habitat's a

[1:52:09] good model because it gets people into

[1:52:10] home ownership,

[1:52:12] but it's not a gigantic building that

[1:52:15] changes those like perceived character

[1:52:17] in the same way. And I know they talk

[1:52:19] about it for service workers and

[1:52:21] everything like that, which I consider,

[1:52:23] you know, our employees also, but

[1:52:26] they're not going to qualify for those

[1:52:28] places. And

[1:52:30] there comes a point where sometimes

[1:52:32] wages maybe have to be paid more, which

[1:52:35] I think Idaho Springs does pretty good

[1:52:37] with it actually.

[1:52:39] I mean, we always compare stuff and, you

[1:52:42] know,

[1:52:45] that's pretty good. Yeah. So, I didn't

[1:52:48] know what the take on a lot of that was.

[1:52:50] And maybe it was was their thing posted,

[1:52:55] the study or something. Is that what it

[1:52:57] was? Where did I read it? Did they have

[1:52:59] something posted?

[1:53:00] >> Uh, what do you think?

[1:53:02] >> Through the housing stuff. The housing

[1:53:04] Oh, maybe it was the county's housing

[1:53:06] thing. Don't know what

[1:53:08] >> he sent us. He sent us something right

[1:53:10] before.

[1:53:11] >> That's what it was.

[1:53:12] >> That's what I was going through. Yes.

[1:53:15] That must have been it.

[1:53:16] >> That was it. Yeah. Anyway, I was just

[1:53:20] wondering how the turnout was. Good.

[1:53:23] >> Not bad. I think they're going to try to

[1:53:24] do some more of that kind of stuff going

[1:53:26] forward. Maybe do it in some other

[1:53:28] locations.

[1:53:30] Good to get people talking in like a

[1:53:32] constructive way.

[1:53:34] And I think if I was disappointed

[1:53:37] there's no additional people, there was

[1:53:38] nobody in the audience tonight because I

[1:53:40] really thought folks would be catalyzed

[1:53:42] to start coming to meetings and

[1:53:45] >> pushing for change and all this, but

[1:53:47] >> more parking if I was just saying if

[1:53:49] especially if there's parking on it.

[1:53:51] Yeah.

[1:53:51] >> Yeah. I I wish it was easier to get

[1:53:55] >> that the people that we had at the at

[1:53:57] those meetings, you know, show up for

[1:53:59] this conversation so they can

[1:54:02] >> tell us what they think.

[1:54:05] Yeah. Yeah. Are we do we have any Yeah.

[1:54:08] How many meetings? We have a three limit

[1:54:10] meeting.

[1:54:12] >> Well, I I just today sent an email to

[1:54:16] Jefferson because I noticed this is now

[1:54:19] he's missed

[1:54:21] three. It might even be four meetings in

[1:54:23] a row.

[1:54:24] >> So, our bylaws say if you missed three

[1:54:27] >> um well, if it says,

[1:54:30] >> but I don't know if that means for the

[1:54:31] alternate. I don't think you're like

[1:54:34] automatically kicked off, but you can

[1:54:37] be. It says members shall be removed

[1:54:40] subject to removal by majority vote of

[1:54:42] city council for inefficiency, neglected

[1:54:45] duty, excessive absenteeism,

[1:54:48] which is three consecutive meetings. So,

[1:54:50] we'd have to

[1:54:52] take it to council

[1:54:54] to formally move. But I reached out cuz

[1:54:57] I heard a rumor that he might be moving,

[1:55:01] >> but I don't know for but that was like a

[1:55:03] rumor. I didn't hear from him.

[1:55:05] >> So I had reached out. I haven't heard

[1:55:07] from him in a while. So I But if he uh

[1:55:11] if he did [clears throat] move then

[1:55:12] obviously

[1:55:13] >> Yeah. I don't know. I guess I wasn't

[1:55:15] even thinking. I just

[1:55:17] >> Yeah.

[1:55:18] He said it

[1:55:21] >> and I said that he should take us out to

[1:55:24] dinner.

[1:55:25] Oh, is that what you said? Take us to

[1:55:28] dinner. He's been missing the meetings

[1:55:30] [laughter]

[1:55:31] at least for a year.

[1:55:33] I

[1:55:33] >> think he's been talking about that and

[1:55:35] still nothing. So,

[1:55:37] >> all right, we're done. Yeah.

09-02-2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript