We're going to be driving for the assessment. I was always late to have to post. I'm going to excuse the mark with always giving me brief about it. I'm not being rushing in at three fifty nine. I don't know if they were those before you. You have to change. Yes sir. I might. Yeah. Yeah. Well. Well. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, both my son and I, and also my young style occasionally travel together to the most of our on. Well I'm going to be posted with my here in the future. That's a lot of things that I want to do. That's a lot of life. Kids do make dent transition. The heart of Andrews resound the beer about his needs. The heart of him is going to miss him. He won the beans. And I agree. 100%. If you don't see what I don't. I don't. I like going in and having a... Oh, I don't know. Yeah, he's doing the pinnacle racing. Everybody says, ah, involved with this or do it. He's a... You can remember, you're still raising the screen. I'm raising the screen. I'm raising the screen. I'm raising the screen. I'm raising the screen. I'min the road. Next is the week from yeah today in the morning we're going to do the hospital to it. Brand new hospital. I'll depend on our couple talk. Yeah. I was there this morning, but I didn't get ready to go in the front entrance and see all the new stuff. Dave, I think we're ready to go. Okay. Ashley, you ready? Check she ends. The logs are in. Oh yeah, now. Okay. Mr. Chairman, can you open the meeting? On line. Good evening, everyone. This is the May 21 meeting of the Snowmass Village Planning Commission. Ashley, could you call the role please? Certainly, Chair DeBae. Here. Vice Chair Marcia. Here. Commissioner Seglon. Item life here. Commissioner Clausson. Here. Commissioner Far. Here. Commissioner Gustafason. Here. Commissioner McMann. Here. Great, thanks Ashley. Great to have full attendance tonight. Next item up is the approval of the May 7th meeting, Maynus. Does anyone have any comments about the minutes? I do. Jamie. Yes, thank you. On line 136 to 143, it seems to be a duplicate. So I would just ask that the duplication be removed. Okay, actually did you get those line numbers? 136 to 143 Jamie. Correct. Okay. Anybody else? I have a very small technical thing which is online 83. It should say soil nail wall instead of nail soil wall. Just switch the order. Okay. All right. I believe that's it for comments on the minutes. May I have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? Second. Okay. We've standing, Jamie, duking it out for and we're on us. Can you stand in, Jayny? All right, all in favor of approval? Hi. Hi. Motion passes. Okay, all right, all in favor approval. Hi. Hi. Hi motion passes. Okay. All right, Dave, first discussion item is Ridge Run Unit 1, lot 61. Yes, and for this Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce our senior planner, Brian McNellis. You can explain to you where we are with this continuance and what we are asking for tonight. Yeah, thank you. Brian McNullis, senior planner for the town of Snowmass for the record. You may remember from our last meeting, we did continue 41 Maple Ridge Lane. This is the application requested in variants for the soil nail wall. As referred to by Mr. Gusselsen. As you may remember at that meeting, the public works director was here and requested that the applicant pursue a right-of-way license for that prior to get any sort of judgment on the variance application. The applicant has gone back and is working with the public works department is currently working with their civil right now in order to put together that application. At that time we requested that the meeting be continued until tonight and then it would be continued to a date certain that date certain of recommendation is July 16th and we do need a vote of the planning commission to continue it to that date. Okay. Anyone have any questions? No. No question. Just I will actually be leaving town on the 16th for whatever that's worth but so I probably would miss that meeting but yes that's good to continue it. It would ask for a motion to vote. Continue to the July 16th. July 16th. Can we get a second? Second. Okay, all in favor of the motion. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Passes. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Brian. Thank you. Brian? Okay, outdoor lighting code. I believe there's a staff presentation. We'll do a short presentation here. Staff was asked in the fall of 24 by town council to look at our outdoor lighting code for possible revisions and looking at it in terms of the dark sky initiatives that have been discussed by a number of town residents. At that time we did hire a outside consultant, Clayton and and associates to help us with the code. They had worked on several of the area. I know they've worked with Aspen and Carbondale on their lighting codes. And so we took our code and had them work with us on that. One of the big things as we've incorporated a map that you'll see in the proposed code. The lighting code revisions that we proposed, we hope will enhance the town's character, livability, address not complying outdoor lighting, help to reduce lighting conflicts between property owners, help to prevent any increase in sky glow and help to preserve a naturally dark sky for the benefit of our residents while life and visitors. The proposed code is a lumen-based metric in lieu of the previously utilized watt-based metric. This better accommodates the advancements in lighting technology and also the equipment that we use to measure the intensity of the lighting. The lighting code as it sits today within our town municipal code is currently within the building regulations. We do have our chief building official Mike Matini us tonight. Mike's done a lot of the enforcement and work with the lighting code up until this point. We continue to help community development going forward. We also have Sarah Nester who unfortunately cannot be with us tonight, but she's done the most of the hard work in bringing this code to this point. She will be here in future meetings. Should we need them? She's just out of town for tonight's meeting. She's our co-compliance manager. I don't know necessarily what the reasons, all the reasons for, but we've been getting a few more lighting complaints recently, and I don't know that's because it has been advertised that we are working on the lighting ordinance. It has not come to planning commission until this time because it's, it was town council that said, hey, we want to look at this. And so we've gone back and forth with them through the development of the code to the stage that it's at tonight. And in doing so, both the council and our town attorney felt that it would better lay within the land use and the development code of chapter 16 rather than the building regulations. That that was a more appropriate place for the code regulations to fit. When we do amend anything in the land use and development code, we do bring that to the planning commission. That's why it's before you tonight. Let's see. I think with that, we would recommend we did prepare a resolution tonight, whether or not you get to that point We could we do recommend approval of that resolution. We did receive some comments from the Aspen ski company All of which we as staff are in agreement with I think that was to change the map to I can't remember but, but it was more the commercial area designation of the two creeks area and then to allow for six months for any changing of fixtures that were come into play. Like anything to add. I think that pretty well does it. I think the big lift here was changing from the aniquated watts. I'm sorry, I'm Mike Mathenium, the chief building official. So I haven't been planning and planning commission for some time. But it was the change from watts to lumens. something that is more in line with the modern codes and the modern way people by lighting. The, you know, we was in, in 18, which was fine. And we actually went through first and second reading with, with counsel and then it was pointed out to us that this probably should live in 16. So here we are tonight Quick question about the units the difference between lumens and lux so That kind of threw me a little bit those terms are in in the definitions. So, lux is the amount of one lux would be the equivalent of a square meter at the full moon. That's that measurement. the foot candles like we normally have used for 100 years, that's how much light a candle sheds on a spot one foot away. Luminance is more of a measurement of the total visible light. I'm sure you've all seen like these newer bulbs that might have numerous LED bulbs in them that are a certain amount of locks or foot candles. But in total, it's much greater because there's 30 of them and that's what aluminum is is the amount of Luminance that you can see from like a fixture From a fixture So the device that measures lumens at a property line or the distance from the property line is that are those two The reason I'm asking this question is that we try to enforce this at the Home Wars Association Architecture Review Board and have for 50 years and enforced it. And we always, it was simple to say 40 watts was a maximum outside visible light source, which translates to something like two watts of LED. So it's like a crazy conversion. But is there a simple device that could be obtained to measure lumens? Because we've always had a hard time figuring out how do we enforce the lighting at the residential level, how do we enforce it? So yes there is and we are in possession of two of them at this point. What we had the first one and discovered that you have to have an illuminated model to actually read it in the dark. We we bought one that you could actually read at night. And yeah, it does measure in both foot candles and lux. So yeah, we do have the device available. Foot candles, lux and lumens. Lux would be the equivalent of, okay. The lumens would be that If you're looking at light trespass each of those fixtures is essentially Putting off so many lumens then you go to the property line for instance and bring it out and see how many Foot candles or or lux that's what we need yeah Notice that the the per-site allowances, especially in the residential section of the proposed code, is quantified as less. That's a site and the building itself lighting. So it's like an aggregate of all the light that's cast. So it's a way to sort of the quantity of a pool of light on a particular site. That would be our intent is to you look at whether it's Christmas lights or outdoor lighting that's in a garden or whatever, in a lighting that's maybe attached to the home or the garage or whatever, all that counts and we're at the property line measuring what like trespass might come off of that area. I hope that answers your question. Yes. Well, do you think it would be helpful to kind of just walk us through the content of the ordinance? We can do that. At a high level and then we can see what kind of comments come forth from that. We can do this. I am, my right contact is giving me fits this afternoon. So you won't be able to go through it and then you add in. Sure. That would help you. I can see you. I mean, these papers turn off the lights. So. Huh, huh. I mean, I think we started. And I think with all codes, it's important to look at a purpose section. We've enhanced the purpose section. And this this comes from I think Clanton helped us with this a lot and it ties into our comprehensive plan as well. I don't know if there's anything regulatory within here. You can also see the map on the first page and basically we have just I think we have well we have three zones basically an open space zone a more commercial zone and then a residential zone and then areas shown as parks so a fairly simple map in comparison to some other jurisdictions but we've done that to help identify the areas where when we define residential requirements, it's those areas on the map that are shown in the, sort of that salmon or pink color. The commercial zone is the blue and then open space in the darker green and parks in the light green. And just stop me if you've got any questions. We also attempted to go through any of the language that's used in the code. That's the definition section. Important that we've tried to better describe what fully shielded, a fully shielded light. if I've been working with Mike and enforcement and complaints, a lot of it has to do with is the light fully shielded or not, does the bulb go down below the shield or is it above and inside? Now we do have elevation changes and so forth, which make it difficult and sometimes for both the person putting up the light and then the impacts on the The surrounding properties and where we've had that conflict we've tried to work with the property owners to To take care of the the problem as much as possible I might add to like the the last lighting complaint that I responded to they had sixxtures on the sides of a building and they were shielded, but they were pointing straight out. And so it was as simple as it was resolved, but we received the complaint. That's the simple notion there is to just not be able to see the source of the light. Correct. Depending on how the shielding works. But one additional thing that I'd like to see that's not in here, I don't believe. And these are more subjective things. I think that the review, architecture review board grapples with. But you can have a shielded light, but it's shining on the surface of the building. So you're illuminating the building, you don't see the light source from anywhere, but the building becomes lighted up. And that is a negative aspect of, you know, controlling the lighting levels and the night sky and initiatives. So I just suggested under your article or your item number six that shielded light shall not be used to light up building facades or directed on to building facades. sounds. Something hard to avoid that. But, it's downlit this way. Thank you. One thing that we're not able to do, we're talking more neighborhood type outdoor lighting, but given our topography and being on slopes, where one home be below another. And that home that's up above has a wall of glass on the main level with canister lighting and their ceiling. It shines, illuminates the interior of that house but also from the home below, Master Bedroom's looking up and looking right at 100 watt reflective floods that are very annoying for them, but still perfectly legal. Because they're interior lighting and I'm glad you brought that up, Doug, because that is something that, again, review board, we're grappling with much, much more intently now, the interior lighting because windows that go all the way up to the head of the ceiling and shed roofs and large glass walls, they do create these high intensity lanterns that just shine across the valley. So that's one of the reasons I was asking about a Lumen or a Luxe measurement device, because it's now coming up at every single meeting and we meet twice a month every month. So and it's always an issue now that you're exactly right. It's a neighborhood to neighbor conflict versus a neighborhood conflict. One thing I this is as directed by council this is for exterior lighting. So that's the first piece. The second piece of that is when you do take that device out. It's pretty shocking how you have all this light interior, but it really doesn't reach the level of trespass. Yeah, you can see it from a long ways off, especially if you're below it. But to read it at a property line, it's lower than you would think. I was very surprised in it. Well then we may need more intricate codes to try to address those kind of issues. I'm not sure what that means, but it's increasing concern that people are starting to see lights from across the one side of the valley to the other a whole brightly lighted lantern of a building that's beacon that's shining. We have not with this code tried to go there but certainly something should the town wish to do and nor is town council directed us to do that but I don't disagree with you. I was down at the look doing a beaver night hike along Al Creek and there's a house there with some nice festoon lighting out in a large TV that I could have watched the basketball game from Al Creek. We have not. It's certain for sure. We don't want to trample on everybody else's rights but at the same time it has an impact and if we're serious about about lighting control and night sky initiative then we should really look at the whole picture. And the only way to really effectively do it is requires a. It's the only way. So we're doing more interior shielding and directing the light sources away from the surfaces. So if you're looking up underneath, you don't have an illuminated ceiling that the light fixtures are focused down and shielded. I mean, it's a delicate thing. And I don't know if we're ready to have the town get into that level of enforcement, but we're doing it at other levels, HOA levels. I will tell you that our consultants are very technical and well-versed, lighting people and could help us with that, but the price was not cheap. And we have used up our budget for that. Doesn't mean we can't ask for more, but they do know how to, I'm sure they would have some ideas for us. Missing a mic. I think it's a great that we're updating this because I mean, lighting technology in the last 10 years has changed, um, tenfold and then we'll continue to evolve. The reality is we live in a very, very dark environment and, um, at night, of course. and we gotta find that right balance. So I think this potential will give you more flexibility to adapt to the changes in lighting. I remember when the first LED lights came out, they were just obnoxiously bright and harsh. And now they're soft and you can get all sorts of different various colors. So I mean, the codes used correctly, for future buildings, it could be really really interesting to see what we do. I mean, you look at the inside of these jets of what they do on the interior, relating to it's amazing. And if we could take some of that technology for the exterior of buildings and even sidewalks, you've seen somebody's really cool crosswalks. I mean, my only pet peeve is crosswalks in this town. You can't see them, and if we can find better ways to light them up without lighting the sky, that'd be great. I think we did some things within the public right away for safety reasons. You know, there is a, we're gonna have a little bit of, and probably likely always will, the amount of light that's required on a stairway for the building code is going to be probably at times and you know in conflict with this. So yeah this is kind of a first step and open to kind of get some controls around it. And the big lift was, so it doesn't say watts and not, you know, something that's so iniquated. But, you know, it's coming a bigger issue. I would say, you know, as I'm in the definition section, we've gotten to some of these conversations, the time, the nighttime hours, timing, and the seasonal lighting dates are significantly changed. What were they before? I believe it was end of ski season. End of ski season. And now it's been changed to commercial zone districts until April 15th and for residential districts. That's essentially end of ski season though. But for residential January 31st. Okay, that's better. And not for seasonal? Yes. Yes. If it were me, I'd push it even a little bit more more let's say thanks giving to January 15th or something like that but Well just so I'm understanding are we talking holiday or seasonal? Seasonal it's the same Yes, in my mind it's there are two different we haven't we haven't separated them. It's just called seasonal right? We don't allow I mean, we don't say holiday lights Intentionally, I think so we get away from there's lots of holidays The way our code this code proposes to address that is by calling it seasonal lighting And the nighttime hours are those year-round or just apply to the seasonal periods? It's a nighttime period for seasonal lighting So outside of the season the season there are no nighttime hours Well, not for seasonal lights you you could you would have to comply with the other lighting regulations There are residential lighting regulations that you need to comply with year-round. But for seasonal lighting, even during the season, they'd have to be, let's see, commercial zones, they have to be, this is a little bit confusing. zonesial zones and all other areas, we use 10 PM until 6 PM. That's a nighttime hour. Ninety hours, no lights. And for business and events that close later than 11 PM, they begin one hour after closing. So in that regard, I'm guessing this is like a typo, but the very last line on page 15, and I don't think this is what was intended to be said, but seasonal lighting shall be extinguished during nighttime hours, which, what's the point of having lighting if you can't have it at night? Those hours. You can have them at night up until that time Night time hours are in definitions. Yes, so you can have you can have seasonal lighting In a commercial zone. Okay, so nighttime hours are later than 11 p.m. Okay, or one one hour after closing I see okay and then residential its 10 p.m. or one hour after closing. I see. Okay. And then in residential, it's 10 p.m. So you can have your lights on, you know, when it gets dark at 4.30 in the night. Do we make a distinction between seasonal lighting and landscape lighting? Yes. How is that defined? I don't know if we have a definition of these speaking here, but seasonal lighting is the what we were trying to hit was essentially Christmas lights, those kinds of things, whereas landscape lighting is a light that's permanently affixed out in the yard. One of the primary things that we look at there is plug load versus permanently wired. If you had a light fixture that was landscape lighting more often than well about all the time. Those should be a hardwired device. These seasonal lights are just a plug-in. That's one of the things that we talked about anyway. So, rather than getting a discussion with your neighbor about the difference, the town is going to define that difference. I have a question for you on that topic. So if somebody has like a tree lit up white lights, is that landscaper? Is that seasonal? That's that was the seasonal. Okay. So it was also like people like trees of all year round. So that would be seasonal. This would prohibit that. For the definition. And we have rifted so far into that direction now from where we were, you know, long time ago, when we really were seriously enforcing lighting. Now there's lighted up trees all over. It's a concern. I mean, where we do have, I think we want to take a look at where you've got the entrance to say one of the hotels or condominiums that have a desk and everything else they may have some lighting out front. And do we want to treat that differently? Mike and Dave, you mentioned the timeline for seasonal lighting and then I was wondering if that aligns with other municipalities. I know Aspen has their lighting ordinance, for example, is it in alignment with other with Pick and County or Aspen or is it our own thing? I can't say that I've read. I have one of them. I would guess that probably the commercial side is somewhat less restrictive and the residential side is probably more restrictive. Just kind of and working on this that's kind of what I would guess. We could get that if you wanted us to yeah I think in my mind said I would just think that because there are so many landscapers and businesses that are helping with lighting especially around the holidays or those seasons that it might be helpful to have a line time frame so that it's not as hard for them to manage and navigate the code. Okay, yep. We can certainly have a question about colored lights that are not necessarily seasonal holiday lights, but landscape lights that are other than white that are displayed year-round. And we know what you're talking about. There's one example that is very conspicuous. So those kind of displays, in my view, they appear kind of incongruous with the landscape in general. Up lighting of a tree here and there is, you know, that can be, you know, casefully done, but brightly colored lights, better blues, reds, you know, the whole gamut really stand out. So I was wondering if there is, what are any interest in addressing those kinds of lights. I don't believe that we got into the color. No conversation. It was purely the amount of light. We did go look at the light output off of that site and it was under our current and proposed requirements. I'd like to suggest that we look at if you want a quality of light in addition to quantity. There is a, you know, and what we've heard previous when we were going through this with council is they were more concerned with the bright white, you know, we all, you know, like when you're you walk into a restroom with a fluorescent light and you're like, oh, yeah, it's almost shocking if it's early in the morning, but they did not. We never did step into the colored lights. That is something that is more, somewhat more in the purview of the architectural review boards because we like to say that we deal with more of the subjective aspects and the talent tends to deal more with the objective considerations, although there's a lot of overlap but still. And if we're all talking about the same particular example, I mean, if that lighting at that location and the way I think the one we're talking about is right at the base of metal road and brush creek. If that lighting is within the code limits at the property lines, then I think our limits are too high. It's just a race. The situation there is actually the street light there is brighter than the lights coming off the property. Dave and Mike thinking about enforcement I was just wondering how the current lighting ordinance or this lighting ordinance would be enforced and also I saw part of the enforcement was in referred to the code section 172 and if that had been updated to reflect the new code. So you want that one? Go ahead. R's is a complaint-based situation. If we did a complaint, we take that person's information down and then respond and try to then get back to them. And that's how it will continue to be. That's correct. We have not gone out. I mean, I have gone out on that particular site to measure. And we would if we had a complaint, it's fairly easy during the season, the winter season, to get out at night and be able to see the lights. It's a little tougher. So Dave, just to be clear, you've measured that exact property. Right. And it's within the town's coast. Yes. Well within. Well, yes. The light trespass is pretty limited there. It's a very nice threshold. Yeah. And it's it's dark. You can see it. You can see it but the light the brightness of the lights coming off. It doesn't take a lot of light to light up this town. I mean it's so dark out. I would think those were white lights instead of what we see it probably be a different reading. If they white lights they'd be much brighter. Color like tend to mute a little bit. Yes. Then it becomes subjective. So David and Mike as far as the penalty goes if someone were to file a complaint and the property owner was not in compliance are they still subject to this $1,000 fine or imprisonment for no more than a year? Is that still the case has that been updated or changed? At some point would issue a citation. On that would be after numerous attempts and we're going to try to do that. We have not been taking people to the courts. Doesn't mean that we can't. $10 or 10 days. It doesn't mean that we can't, but we have not in the past. And until last year, we haven't had a co-compliance officer. It's been either one of our staff building or planning going out or maybe the police department sees something when they're out that's egregious or complete. This fall in Tom Dunlop's purviewers. No. He's consultant basis. He's consultant basis on environmental issues. We have not used him on lighting. Okay. You know being Matt let me just say being a property manager we have a number of second homeowner. absentee homeowners who it's one of their mountain experience. They like to they give us instructions in the fall. ball, let's put lights up on these trees, so on and so forth. And that'll change year to year or not. But they're only out here for a few weeks scattered across the winter, and they enjoy that experience, the winter experience, the snow, lights in the tree. So when we talk about January 31st being done, disappoint them, but they'll have to live with the code. But as far as compliance, if that's property managers, that responsibility falls on us. Now, if we get a call in from a neighbor, then there's simply a matter of calling a property management company. And we should be, we all collectively should be responsive enough to get that taken care in a matter of a couple of days. And that's been our experience. That's been our experience. If it's a property management company, it's one call and the problem seems to alleviate itself. And I get it, people are going to be out there, you know, in ahead of their clients coming in and stringing the lights when it's still not this much snow on the ground. I get that. It's the question of when you turn them on and off more than anything. That's the. That in particular, that 10 o'clock curfew. Yeah, that needs to be maintained. Dave, sorry Stan, I think you had a question. I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. Definition number three, ALAN, so-called, which comes back in definition eight and nine, and then comes into one. ALAN is defined as light that is created by human technology rather than a naturally occurring process such as electric lighting. I don't understand what that means. Electric lighting is not a naturally occurring process. That was in which one? Number three. It's in division number three. Artificial lighting at night, ALEA. I don't know what electric. Yeah, that ALEA is also referenced in definitions eight and nine and then there's a code section 11. So I think they're saying that artificial light at night sometimes referred to as electric. I think that's what they're saying there, or intending to say. Light is created from human technology rather than a naturally occurring process such as electric lighting. I think it's saying anythingly written. I think it should be light that is created from human technology, comma, such as electric lighting rather than a naturally occurring process. That would be more understandable. And then in that case, what would be the natural, what would be an example of a natural occurring process? Moon. Moon stars. Okay. Fireball. Okay. Great. Yeah, I think if that were re-ordered,, that would make a better sense. Agreed. Then, festoon string lighting, which is defined in number definition four, which is basically a wire that's strong as balls. And- That's the one on all creep that I mentioned. And then also the mall. Many many people have those over their patios and would they now be illegal? There's a provision for them in the in the code they have to be under certain lumens. They have to be under certain lumens. That's the residential restrictions. They have that exception in the code. It's under 690, 4690. Okay. Stan, were you specifically finding the festoon lighting? It's definition number four. Getting a little bit dark. Okay. Stan, were you specifically finding the festoon lighting? It's definition number four. We're getting a bit of a gut. Okay. Yeah. I got it. And then the exception is that the total 16A for 690 would be the total outdoor luminolowance, I suppose, right? Correct. Or un-shielded light sources would also be this festoon. Okay. Lastly, I think 15 November to January 31st is overly restrictive. We used to have as a rule of thumb Thanksgiving to Easter. And you may want to add more specific dates to that. But January 31st is still a very dark time in the year. And I think it's improved by people having seasonal lighting, so called, and that that seasonal lighting can carry beyond January 31st. And one last thing, outdoor TVs. I don't know where they fit, whether they fit in the sign code or they fit in the outdoor TV code, which doesn't exist, or whether they fit in the lighting code. but outdoor TVs produce a particular kind of image that may not violate the lumen restrictions. a particular kind of image that may not violate the Lumen restrictions, but are moving images and when they shine into someone else's house, I think they're very unpleasant. If there would be some way to look at the possibility of including outdoor TVs here I think that would be a good addition. 100%. So right now I'm writing down comments if we let's keep the discussion going. But once we get to a point where you're asking us to go back and make some changes and bring it back or pass something, then I'd like to, what does the planning commission want? Because I've heard of, I think, a couple of things on dates and times. Thank you. But I see the TV and the one I mentioned, I don't know that I could tell you I needed to get closer to say whether that TV was inside or out, but it certainly looked like it was outside. Yeah, TVs are... And we've had complaints on TVs before. Yeah. And you know, interestingly, you can still get that same negative effect from an inside TV. However, that's harder to control. But the outside TV's, I 100% agree with Stan, is that that should just be a prohibition. Okay, I'll put that in. Jamie? Yeah, I was going to say Mike, for my understanding of the new code, the commercial and multi-family complexes have a little bit more lenient CM outdoor lighting. Would short-term rentals be considered lodging? Short-term rentals in a residence, you're still under the residential provisions. That's where the map comes into play. If your condominium is in that commercial area, then you'd be under the commercial regulations. If you're under the residential mapped areas, you'd be under the residential. So, and I wanted to go back with you. I wasn't sure that I was able to answer all of your question about the fines and what have you. Were okay with you know we issue a citation and did that explain it adequately for you? Yeah yeah I did it seems like there really isn't a compliance issue once you talk to folks and so you know sending them to jail isn't necessary. Yeah 99.99% of this is a phone call. and take care of it. And light have it. Work in our friendly little town, but sometimes you don't get that. And even I say that we have not had a lot in snowmass village where we've taken anybody to court, but even in the jurisdictions that I've worked in in the past that we've taken people to court, typically the judges going to give somebody the opportunity to correct the violation in a modest fine. They're not gonna go to, you've gotta be pretty flagrant too. Which one? It's something at the high end of that. David, my clarification about the map, I know it has set the snow mask off course is shown as a zone two. I think that's a commercial district. I was wondering what you were thinking about that designation. We can, does that give it an added layer of restriction? Well, it gives it actually greater allowance and the difficulty there is... I mean, we could try to draw boundaries that don't follow parcel boundaries, but the... Right. It's open space. The Zmast club has pretty significant lighting around the tennis courts. Those areas, the golf course doesn't, but it's still within that district you're right. And we would have to try to set that some. Yeah, some work with our, I'm sure we could work with GIS to do that. But right now, it hasn't been a problem. We haven't done that. You're right. Yeah, be good to kind of separate the two use areas for the purposes of this map. The club might even have something that they'd be interested in providing. I don't know. So I have. That's actually an area where we've had some complaints too. If you've been on the comments drive that night. I have one on security lighting. But before that, I also was going to say I just thought that under definitions number five on page 10 is just excellent the way it's written. And I'm not sure who did that, I assume the consultants. But it just says the five principles for outdoor lighting use light only if needed. Distribute light only where needed. Use light no brighter than needed. Use light only when needed. And use warmer colors, as opposed to that really, the really cool high intensity LED kind of light. So I think that really is, if we somehow philosophically could adhere to that, there's some subjectivity in what those issues are, which leads me to the notion of the security lighting. And it says, illumination used specifically to protect people, property, and infrastructure from criminal threat. And again, having worked on a lot of condo and doggier in the property management business as well. We're working on condo complexes. There's a whole range of attitude there. Some people that come from big cities that own condos think that it needs to be operating room, lighting, level in order to be safe. In our town, at least we've taken more of the approach where you need stumble lighting but you don't need to you know worry about criminals hiding behind every bush and I don't know if there's a way to further define what level security lighting is needed but I know that there's a whole range of expectations from different people and different properties. That's the slippery slope. We have people who are afraid of bears for instance you know and they want to lit up and we have folks like you said who are from more of an urban environment where it needs to be really lit up. One thing that I live in Carbondale, one thing that's happened there was an attack on an older person in Carbondale and then it went from everybody was like, well let's keep the light down. Down there was a whole contingent of people and a large one. We got to light this area up and install it. Yeah, it's definitely like you said, Mike, it's a slippery slope. It's a very slippery slope. If philosophically we want to maintain the more natural mountain setting of dark sky and just natural, and I kind of disagreed with Stan a little bit about the idea that seasonal lighting kind of is enhances things. I mean, it's not bad. And it's, but I think that it just changes the flavor of our natural mountain setting. Years ago, we had a guy named Johnny Moonlight. And he was from Dallas or someplace. And his thing that he did was he would come in and do your property and light up trees, put lights in the trees and put up lights into the trees. And it became a big, for a short time it became a big battle on the Homeowners Association level that that was, it was beautiful, it was wonderful, but it was sort of Disneylandish. And so there's philosophical question of how, where do we want to go with this lighting? My attitude is more to the lower natural level, but I think others might have different thoughts on that. Well, from a property manager's perspective, and do mostly home, not the economy and the complex. But security lighting would be a motion detector. That was trigger. I want to do it with three lives to come on. And then it's a matter of how long? Five minutes? Yeah. It's five minutes. I was just trying to look that up. Yeah. Emerson activated it's five minutes. five minutes and then we also have a safety exemption that does allow if it's the building codes as you've got to have a light over a stairway or offshore requirements for construction or other things that you're exempt. lighting thing that you guys were just discussing, it's a really, that's also kind of a half the people really think the holiday lighting really adds half the people think it detracts. So it's a really, it's a tough thing here. I will say that's true. By the way, get comments both ways. The city of Aspen code which I've got up is March is goes from 15 November to March 1st and there's no distinction between commercial and residential And I'd be inclined to support that. Seasonal lighting, again, Kelmarts 15, doesn't seem too strong. It just feels better. Now, seasonal lighting in my mind are white lights, not some of the other colors that we see with red, blue, and green. May I ask to Mike, I couldn't find if there was a cap on Lumen's four seasonal lighting. Is there a cap on Lumen's for seasonal lighting? No, no. Would that be something you all would want to consider? That's why we're here. That's a good point. That's why not address that. It seems like it's lighting. It's a source of light and could present some problems that's done in excess. I'm willing to talk about that. That's the movie. The bad idea. Made a movie about it. Yeah, it's the way I care about that. A simple way to do it would be to apply the same standard at the light trespass at the property line. You're there. There you go. If I might ask a question, this might be a good time to do that. In comparison to the Aspen lighting code, there are a lot of, that there are a number of detailed tables in the Aspen code which articulate light output levels. And whether it's intentional or not, that type of detail hasn't been included in the Snell Mass, uh, uh, lighting code proposal that we're reviewing now. Um, I wondered you might speak to whether that was an intentional, uh, decision to make on your part or whether, whether some of those, uh, detailed, um, tables might, might be appropriate in terms of addressing some of these issues that we've been discussing. The mic can respond as well. I think the Aspen Code, the consultant was brought in and went through the process with the town. the town also has code compliance officers. Might be more familiar with how many. I think they took a much more stringent look at it. When we were asked to look at it from the town council's perspective, it wasn't a wholesale change to the code. It was to try to bring it more into compliance with some dark sky initiatives. And I think the definition that Commissioner Gussis and Red, that's what we tried to do, but without bringing in a lot of complexity to the code, not more complexity to the code. But I think Aspen went to a different level. Definitely. And that's certainly possible. It's just not something we've done. Like I mentioned earlier, 99% of the time, it's a phone call takes care of it. And we're trying to keep it kind of that way here. Yeah, I can understand the desire to do that. I'm just wondering that if it's the one that ever comes to shove, whether or not it's advisable to have. I can say if we bring it on consultants, they'd have a different take on that. They would want us to, they've got some good reasons of why they want to go with those tables and you have to understand them and use them. We haven't, as a town, gone to that level of compliance and enforcement. Well, back to security level lighting for just a second. Could we add something to the effect that says that security lighting can be provided, but I don't know, it's subjective, but it's kept to a minimum and maybe use of, and then use of the motion detectors as the backup to that so that we don't have to overly brightly light general public areas because of security issues. Now keep in mind, most detectors are probably more often tripped by wildlife. Oh yeah, understood. Yeah, but that's partly as Mike pointed out, some people are afraid of the bears. So people are just afraid of the dark. Afraid It's true. I mean, we've kept in this code also the, you know, we say fully shielded, but the current code allows for it just to be a non-clear lens. We've kind of up that to non-clear clouded lens. We've had some input into this that people want all everything to be shielded and that would be a big change if you've gone through all of the driveway lights and there there are short lights but they've got a clouded lens that that's it. We chose not to change. There are plenty of shielded lights though that are suitable for driveway use. Absolutely. You could. And force that all the time now. We have gas. But it's a big change. I'm saying there's a lot of people have lights if you drive around at night. I mean just for new construction then it wouldn't be good. I don't I'm agreeing that I don't think we should be policing all the things that have happened over the decades but for new construction. New standards. Well there will be some kind of like informational educational outreach about the ordinance just so that we can and just get more compliance in a kind of a soft touch way so that the first encounter they have with us is not an enforcement action but it's maybe disinformation about how to you know why it's why we're doing it what are the values behind it why it's good for the community. I think that's very reasonable and Sarah Sarah, our person who handles the compliance and the things, she would absolutely be, you know, we could put on some kind of a vent or something and she'd be excellent at that. Website or outreach, I know between our co-compliance manager, that Sarah and I know our assistant town manager Greg Leblanc has done a lot of that with the draw site to train. So I think we could take that. So we can't reach it. Right. I don't know if we could tap into tourism dollars because they have a pretty strong messaging arm. I think we can do it. Just try to think of different channels to get the word out. New banner on Woodbridge or something. New bridge, a new banner. I think we can absolutely do that without too much problem. Good. Well, it's a good effort to, and there's a lot of discussion and subjectivity about this subject as far as I'm concerned there is. And if we could adhere to those five principles that were written down in one of these items that, yeah, item five on page 10, that was, if we could objectively follow those principles in some measurable way, that would be great. I know it's so subjective in some, in so many ways, but. Yeah, that one sentence, if you could objectively do it that's about all you would really need that's right that'd be an easy one yeah that's the right person in force everybody agrees with him or her what about the effective date would you like some input on that or do you have a date in mind or time frame because it has to go to council first. Well, we'd have to go to council first and I think that's where you had the input from Asmits he company that asked for six months. But yes, we would like input on that. Commissioner, does have any feedback? So you're asking the effective data when the code would go in? Yes. I guess it would, for me, understanding when the recommendations might be incorporated into the code and then working from back from that. I would say that, I mean right now, timing-wise, depending on how long the planning commission was just to look at this ordinance, we could get the council in July, making an adoption in late July or early August. We might be able to even distinguish between the dates on the holiday or seasonal lighting, excuse me, to me, should go into effect, particularly if you get it done in August. You get plenty of notice before November 15th. And you know, the ski season start before that anyway. So people are pretty used to that one. It would be the closing date that would be the one and then the rest of the if you're changing fixtures or something gives six months to come into compliance. If we were to do something there would be more of what I would say a significant change all I say everything has to be fully shielded, then I'd like the idea of new construction rather than going back into all of the non-shielded lights that are in the town. That includes lights on outside of garages and some of that. But that's not proposed right now. But if it was to be proposed, I would say that would be new construction and then have a six months on everything else and the dates would be effective immediately. But. So would the holiday lights, would that be subject to the sooner implementation? I would, I think we could do that with the ordinance. Right. But if we were, I mean, just looking forward and trying to guess, that if you had adoption in August, the November 15th start date proposed is in line with the ski season now. So that doesn't really change. It would be the ending date. Right. January 31st, if that's the date or March 1st, if that's the date, that I think we should, that that should be a, that should be enforced. So one thing, I, you know, I've taken all the notes on, you know, what you guys wish to see in this. The one thing that you know I've taken all the notes on you know what you guys wish to see in this the one thing that kind of remains out there we had dates that we'd kind of work through this with council and those were the dates that we ended up with and we've I've heard a couple of different things from individuals could And we possibly get a date that you all could agree on that we could then take to council or? I think we've all of these items. Yeah. But that one in particular will be a stickler. I mean, if I'm hearing things correctly tonight would be, we'd like staff to look at the ordinance and take into account these comments and bring back another. Yeah, next meeting. I think we could wrap up on the next meeting is my guest. But I see revised resolution. The one thing that we are hearing a little, that different dates is let us know on that one. Right now I have Thanksgiving to Easter. Oh those days. Sorry to give me to Easter those days. Yeah. I think Easter could be a long date sometime. I think March 15th is fine. I'd like to see it lights up longer. Thank you so much, 15th. Yeah. I'd like to propose March 1st just to make it an alignment with the City of Aspins code. No, it's much first, yeah. It's the City of Aspins. Yeah, so I think what I see on Aspins is November 15th to March 1st, and I think that would help with the property management companies and things like that to have a scene, timeline across the board. Is there fine with that start date? November 15th is good, but I think that a better compromise is not January 31st, but March 1st or March 15th. I could go with either. If there's consensus on that, you're not adopting anything tonight. We can go back, revise this draft, bring it back to you next meeting. Maybe not next meeting, but maybe June 16th meeting. I think that works. Anything that I'm less is more on this issue, so I think anything that's shorter time period, shorter smaller amounts of light, you know, more limits in as many fronts as we can. Just philosophically that's where I would be. So I think I'd go with the consensus here. But I think the consensus here is fine. As we told you when we started tonight, the January 31st date came from the direction from council. So. And they could change it back. Outdoor TVs. We've got I've got outdoor TV. I can read back to you what I've got. If you'd like. Sure we have it also. There's one one before you finalize that list. It did have one suggestion that's in sections 4, 6, 40, full of visions about the outlining of structures. I think it might be helpful to just kind of tweak that sentence a bit to say lighting lighting, including neon and fluorescent, used to outline a structure in whole or in entirety or in part. That would, I think, foreclose on the idea of kind of putting a string of lights along one portion of an eve of a building and then claiming that they're not subject to the to the regulation because they're not outlining the entire structure by just a portion of it. What section was that again? That section 16A for 640 prohibition and that's line two. Oh, okay. In whole or in part. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Good. Could somebody re-state? I guess I didn't quite understand. I know we talked about it. The white-lighted trees that people have, a lot of many residences and commercial applications as well all over the town. What, how will they be affected by this code as it's currently written? Can you just restate that? I think you did. In any residential areas, any seasonal and commercial areas, any seasonal lighting that a lit tree with the plug-in lights would have to be all. It's all going to be considered seasonal light. It would all be considered seasonal. I think the one area would be like an entrance to the limelight or entrance to another one of the larger. Well there are plenty of commercial like I just think I drive by it. The ridge condos has some light at three. So where you've got the entrance, particularly where you've got a 24-7 or where you can check in and that type of thing, that we would not be enforcing it there. But so we would be enforcing in residential neighborhoods, people that have lights in their white lights in their trees. Yes, okay. Okay, so I'll be sure that I... And then I come back to... We keep using the term seasonal lighting. Correct. So we're trying to define what season is, it's a ski season, it's a winter season, it's the holiday season. It's, it's defined by dates. So it's not Halloween. That's my point. There's a lot of different seasons. So we're trying to define what season is. The date is not July 4th. It's... Wait a minute. You mean we can't put our red, white, and blue lights up during July 4th? Yeah. Put them up for a day. We'll probably about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk about that later. We'll talk January 31st. So I think the dates we landed on, I think we're November 15th to March 1st. Yes. That's kind of where we settled on that. The final season. Even with the white lights in the residential areas, Gus. Yeah, I mean, I think that's going to be a hard sell for some people, but I embrace that less is better. It will be a hard sell. Okay You read off kind of the things I've got I think it was to limit the lights that shine onto a building face to I think we just discussed internal lights but we didn't. We understood that this code does not address that. We improved the definition of landscape lighting to check the nighttime hours and aspen and carbonbondale, which I think we did here. Thank you. We've gone from dates from 1115 to March 1st to restrict outdoor TVs. Dave, discourage. I'm sorry. We could use discourage. I would know. I thought that I said restrict. I would think we want to restrict. I prohibit rather than restrict. I restrict would be prohibit restrict. I'm sorry. I thought it just sounded like he's. I said restricts. Look at the golf course mapping on their commercial, more commercial areas versus the more park areas. Look at a level of seasonal lighting, the output, and try to come up with a level. Where are we all okay with the same measure, the light trespass measure on that at the property line for any kind of lighting, including seasonal? Yeah, I'm okay with that except it sounds like from what you described that we might want it to be at a lower calculation than it currently is. Using that one example of the one intensely lighted landscape area still acceptable at the property market. I will say you know it's going out and measuring some of these the dapp property and I think they're colored lights. It's the light output is not you can see them from across the valley but from the light output at the property line it's and when you get to some another location where somebody might just have two lights on their garage door and some landscape lighting. Well the garage door lights should be shielded so that shouldn't be an issue. Or clouded. They're clouded. But I'm just using that as an example. It seems like if that's acceptable then our standard, our bar is too high. But I don't know how we evaluate that further. That's just my thought. That's what I found when I went out with the device. When you get the white light, whether or not it's anything versus the blue lights or the other lights, they't put out as much. Look at our security lighting definitions to be kept to a minimum and the use of motion detectors encouraged is what I had. But that's supplement that security concern. Yes. outreach that's not part of the code but highly recommended that we concern. Yes. Informational outreach, that's not part of the code, but highly recommended that we do them for an enhanced information outreach. And those are the items. Oh, and then changed it. 640, the whole are in part. So one thing you said Dave that I would you going back to where you said light the light on the face of the building. I think it would want to be more specific that the light lighting should not be intended to eliminate the surface. Okay. Good point. The building surfaces. Residential or commercial? Residential. I commercial is a, maybe it should apply to commercial too, but that's a different discussion than residential. Is that what you had, Mike? No, that's it. That's everything I had. I think we're all happy with the comments that have been recorded and read back. So we're looking at coming back next planning commission meeting June 16th, two meetings. June two meetings. June 16th with revised resolution. commission. No, the next planning commission will be June 2nd, but. Count control. But we're just trying to, it gives us time to revise it, get the resolution put together. We've got a holiday weekend coming up and next week's a short week. So, in fact, it's June 14th and June 18th. Oh, 18th. June 14th. I'm sorry. The one that's checking that actually is July 16th and is that they correct? Oh. They didn't correct. Would you do I 18th? Oh, of course. They're part two 18th. June 18th, but the jail. But the July meeting is on July 16th. I was just asking because I leave on the 16th. So, I'm sorry. Okay. That's, I'm sorry. I was remembering the continuance on the variant item to July 16th and that's why I didn't have my dates in June correct July June 18th is when we bring this back. Mike I know you start work at about 5 a.m. So this is probably a long day for you already. It is it's beyond my bedtime Okay Thank you. I appreciate you. Yeah, thank you Thanks y'all that was. Thank you. Good discussion. Hey, Dave. The next item is a discussion of the meeting day and time. And the chairman asked me to put this on. And I'll know what to. Are we? OK, I'll take it from there. Why don't you take it from there? Yeah, I'll take it away. I have a conflict on Wednesdays in the summertime. And it just happens to align with pretty much the entirety of our meetings when we go to 6 p.m. And it affects not only me, but of my family members too, because we had this other activity together. So what I'm asking is for the commissioners to consider shifting the start time of the meeting from 4 o'clock to 3 o'clock and we would still hold it on the same days. That way I could attend fully both activities on the same day. I like the 4 o'clock start time better for the work day but this would be really, but what about a different date, Tuesday or Thursday? Well, for me, that would be... That would be doing, Wednesday, since the beginning of the town, that's pretty radical change, but I for one would be okay with that. I don't Dave, is that an issue for you guys? Well, I'd like to get a if we're looking at a date then we would, I mean, when we have council meetings on Mondays, our bylaws call for, you know, they have the meetings dates in it, but we can amend our bylaws. We would just have to confirm the availability of the council chambers on whatever date and time you choose. Matt, for me, three o'clock start time impacts the workday more than the four o'clock workday. So that's a consideration in my right for me. I understand. How long are are you proposing the change? When does it when you're when did you come up with them? So this is a seasonal activity. So it goes through the end of August. So it's it's wheat so weekly Wednesday activity. We have two meeting dates per month, so I would miss half the things that half of these events. So it's not ideal. When do you have to leave for that to take part in these events? It depends because the activity moves around the valley. So some. So some days, you know, 5-15 would work. In other days, it would be 4-45. I don't know, we already have 45-minute meetings. Right. Even on the best days, we're at an hour. So yeah, I apologize for this, for bringing this up. I'd like to do both activities and both important to me. I just thought I would just use this time to see if there's any appetite for shifting. I don't think I can do anything before four, but if it's one or two or just a few meetings, I think we could move it to a Tuesday potentially, just for the summer, but that's about all. I don't feel like it should be a permanent change by any means where we have to mend the bylaws. Yeah, if you were just talking about two months, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, we've had additional meetings. But I mean, just for me personally, getting here before four could be a problem. So I think that's already said that. But I would have a problem doing it on a Tuesday. But I don't want to make it like a permanent change. If it was a few meetings, I'm OK with that personally. But anything beyond, I think I'd be out to the public that we have to stay at the course on a Wednesday. I know that I mean, staff will try to work with whatever the Planning Commission would like. I know that it's probably Ashley and I all the time. We know the meetings are these times, and we try to put our schedules and accordance with those. But we will try to work with whatever you come up with. So this would affect June, July, and August. It would be six meetings. So if you want us to propose something, then we can look into it in terms of availability. Do we already have legal notices out for some of the meetings coming up? The continuing item, but we could put on another. probably pretty flexible. The continuing side, I think. I'm guessing. Because we did continue to that date certain that we could. Yeah. Ask them to modify that. Matt, I'd prefer to keep Wednesday, but Gus just suggested maybe 330 as a compromise and that would work for me. I don't know how everybody else feels. Sounds like like if you had enough time to... Yeah, I mean I probably would have an issue but you know Matt you're an important member of this group and we want to try to accompany you if we can. me being late is not a big deal. I mean, you know, this is a tough one. So, is everybody else feel? Yeah. I'm able to accommodate a 330 change for the summer. And yeah, I think you're an important, you're a fearless leader. So it's important. David, what do you think? I'm very flexible quite honestly. You're in a different time zone anyway, right? For a short period of time, yes. But it doesn't. Stan? Well, I'm... and I'll go with the flow here. We prefer a different day actually to an earlier time. Would the team be, if we're in alignment with being flexible about a different meeting time, could we have a doodle or something via email to see what times might be appropriate for the group? There are a lot of things in the next couple of months that might affect folks. I could do something. We could send out something to the entire group and say, we could check into 330 or 330 works. I mean, right now, I can't. I won't work for me, but I'll be late. But, you know, that will impact me on that day. I could do two days at four, but I don't know if I can consistently be here at 3.30. I have calls. I've also looked at the town calendar and it looks like Tuesday. It's a pretty big day for some of our part time advisory boards. So it appears that it may not be available for us to have that time. Yeah, I wondered about the available. Thank you. What about Thursdays, Ashley? Thursdays I think are slightly more open. As far as after game goes, Thursdays look better. It was the most of our meetings or Monday Tuesday Wednesday. They have calls on that. For forwards and can be. I mean the other thing you've got going on, you know, our rotary, our rotary rodeo. But, but the rodeo is going to be, I mean, that's another reason to maybe change it for the summer. Well the concerts concerts are on Thursday, though, Dave. OK, so we're meeting Sunday morning after church. Well, I just suggested Thursday, but then I all of a sudden realized that every other Thursday is the first and third Thursdays of the month is when we have architectural review board meetings. So I couldn't do both. I mean, I think it's 5.30 now. We had a fairly lengthy discussion on a lengthy item today. When we have one item, we can get through it pretty good. When we have two, three or more, the next item on June 4th is going to be the workforce housing proposed code change. That should be a quick discussion. Sure. Sure. But I think it will be much like the lighting discussion. I have a problem. If it starts at 3.30 if I can make it, I can, but if I'm late and I'm late. Yeah. I'll still make the meeting. Understood. I think that's right. If we go that way, we should absolve you in advance for not getting a tardy slip. We won't count them as tardy. You're right. It's the minutes that you were late. It might not be a problem, just saying it could be a problem. So you guys have to decide and then if Matt can't make the meeting. Staff is here at 3.30. I just have to ask, weren't you aware of this? I was aware of it. Last year, we met so infrequently as planning commission and did an impact schedule when I had this other activity. This year, I mean, I've been doing this at other activity for years. So this year, we've been having a steady flow of meetings. So it was sort of a late breaking conflict. I managed it last year. It was totally doable. The alternative is if we can't change it, then I will come to the meetings for as long as I can stay. And then I have to pass the gamble. And maybe that's how it ends. And that works as long as we have a quorum. Which we've been having a quorum. Attendance has been excellent. It has been just the reason we went to seven members to start with was we were having a hard time getting a quorum in the summertime. Well, if you're not here for the start and somebody else's absent as well for other reasons, we've got a quorum issue, but if we start with the full board and then you have to leave. Well, remember Stan, this board uniquely has a quorum of three people, even though we're a seven member board. So it's pretty easy, threshold to get three at least. Okay. But yeah, that's the typical quorum and for reasons years ago that was the reason that we went that way. We had two alternates and then they... I guess my point simply is that if somebody has to leave, once the The quorum is established, the quorum is not broken. Right. That's a good point. I would have to look at that with the town of Turnip. I mean personally, I do feel- I think what you lose a quorum, you lose a quorum, but I'm not. I mean, nothing against, I mean, I just feel this is my personal opinion when it comes of these types of meetings as we have an obligation to the public to hold the course indifferent of what our personal issues are. It doesn't mean we can't be flexible, but I just feel like it's hard to accommodate everybody. David has this thing, but he still makes a meeting. It's just a tough issue and I get it. maybe it's something you can do online. Maybe you give us more time if that's an option. But I look at this as the council has that day. It's been that day forever. And our date's been this date. And the public knows that. And that's another aspect to this. And in the past, it could flexible with summer meeting meeting dates? And I think staff is aware of that in the summer. We've tried to space out some of the code amendments that we're not putting workforce housing and lighting on the same meeting date. I don't think where we, I don't know know if you heard from the update, I didn't give that update. But the town council on Monday night unanimously authorized this town staff to submit to community development, the draw site preliminary PUD application. I'm guessing. Just as a reminder, there is no strings attached to the sketch plan approval. So in my opinion, it's still pretty open for review. Yes. But just guessing that's an item that may take more than an hour. More than one discussion. Yes, yes. So I've been thinking about this and listening to all the comments from staff and UOLs, commissioners, And I wouldn't feel comfortable unless it was like unanimous agreement to change This is you know, I don't I don't want to put put anyone in a bad spot So I think what I'll do is withdraw the request to change the meeting and I appreciate listening to my request and I will attend and make decisions about what I will my commitment and I will do the best I can to attend and fulfill the, you know, what I agree to do in serving the public. So, um... to attend and fulfill the you know what I agreed to do then serving the public. So I just I'll just leave it at that and again I thank you for your your timing considering this. Okay thank you and then I just gave the update on the draw sites so that that was a big hurdle, I think, for the town council. I didn't go to all the meetings for all of them, but they, as owners, really took a hard look at the draw site. I think they have a concept that they're happy coming forward with. But looking forward to talking with all of you about the architecture and the landscaping and the entire plan. I think it was good that Jeff Conklin sent an email when he did to clarify. I remind us of our position and our obligation as a committee and I assume he'll be attending these meetings. I've had that discussion with many of you and I have that had that discussion with town council and the training that we did I think went a long way. I think we will have the same discussions that the owners were having. I think that you know whether or not the draw site ultimately gets done or not gets does not get done is not going to be impacted by more and more owner meetings. I think getting it into the process will help it, will actually help, regardless of how that turns out. I think, good. You know, we'll have the meetings here of the public can come in, speak to it, we'll put together a recommendation for council and council will do the same thing. Do we automatically have public hearings associated with those meetings? It'll be public meetings, not public hearings. I know, but do we, but public hearings is a different threshold. We'll have public hearings as well. Before council council you will. Before planning commission. Before planning commission now. Would be public meaning. Does that allow for input? Yes. Public input. We've never, I mean to my knowledge with this commission or even the, any commission since I've been here, we've ever restricted. We can have regular public hearings on different issues and so that's I'm not Distinguished. The code determines that. Okay, okay. So we follow the code. I mean we put notice out for the meeting what's going to be in the meeting but we would not Put a, do it mailings or anything different. We have a lot down the pipe this year coming up. Well I think that's what Commissioner Dubay was referencing. We've been having meetings every twice a month. It's quite over the winter. I think that's it. I think there are a but yes. Many updates on any other projects we've reviewed. No, I think we did get the deerbrook final plan turned in, but that does not come back here, but just to update you on that because many of you, I think that started back in 2019. Yeah, oh way or more you're the man. We've been working on that because many of you I think that started back in 2019. Yeah, we've been working on that project. It was pretty cold. Yeah, decades. Yeah, but that's that that that has been turned in. We anticipate the plan for the divide housing project to be turned in shortly. Those are the big items. There will be another application. We can only do one of the applications at the time. One major. One major. You're supposed to be considered major, right? I believe so. Did I reach something that Anderson ranch maybe? I've not heard. Okay. Well, they just said at the meeting, Anderson ranch, Peter Wonders was, no, he's the, yeah, Peter Wonders said that they need housing, which is not a surprise, but so they didn't necessarily talk about, or something, their own housing. They were just encouraging the town to build housing. And I'm sorry I keep bringing up one more thing. I should have a list. The El Camp Dec was approved on Monday night as well. They did cloud the steel post with a wood element that's similar to the wood elements that are adjacent to the current deck. And then they widen the skirt a little bit, but not, didn't bring it down too much because of the concerns I think the planning commission had with lighting into the children's area. But that was approved as well. the the current housing mitigation and then council asked staff to look into the housing mitigation requirements and the code. I haven't talked with town management about when we would start working. When you said with the current housing mitigation, do you would, does thatume that the shop housing is approved? Is that there? No. It, excuse me. It allows for that to come into play, but if that does not come into play, they would provide a letter of credit. It was in your resolution. It was 1 million,000 letter of credit, and that could be cashed by the town if it's not provided within three years of the building permit. So if it is provided, they don't to pay the money. If it's not provided, they have to pay the money. We cashed the letter of credit. $1,. One million and change would build one affordable unit up on the draw side. That's why the council wants us to look at the housing mitigation requirements, which is a 50% of the total right now. It may be, could go to 100% or 80% or I don't know. The transit center looks like it's going to be paired way back to smaller improvements. Will we, do you think, do you think we'll still see as planning commissions and plans for that? I don't have it up. I don't know when that would come forward. But yes, it would be a special review if and when it. Yeah, it would no longer be a transit center. It would just be improvements to the existing condition. Right. Includes improvements that they're calling themselves. Okay. Thanks, Dave. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Everyone may have a motion to adjourn. So moved. Doug, in a second? No second. So done. All in favor? Hi. Hi. We're adjourned. Thank you everybody. Hi, David. Thank you, David. Good to meet you. Thank you, David. Good day. Great. Great. I think I'm 420. Yeah. That was not really. I'm usually.