So now that's it's like that.

Planning commission meeting of May twenty seventh, twenty twenty-sixt call in order.

Can we have real call, please?

Yes.

Chair Thomas.

Vice Chair Wilson?

Here.

Commissioner Laman?

Here.

Here.

Commissioner Phillips?

Here.

Commissioner Watson.

Here.

All right.

Thank you.

Um item number two.

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak regarding items that are not scheduled for a public hearing this evening?

All right.

Do we have a motion?

I move to approve the minutes.

Thank you.

Second.

All right.

Uh we have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

All right.

Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for the building code update to adopt 2024 I code package.

This was noticed in the Daily Camera on May sixteenth, twenty twenty-six.

The planning commission will review and provide comments on the building code package.

Commission will consider the record, which includes city planning staff report, um, presentations by the city's planning staff and any public comment received during this hearing.

It's important that each commit commission member remain effective and capable of considering information offered into the record.

Does any commission member believe that he or she is incapable of evaluating, reviewing, and commenting on the proposal consistent with due process requirements?

If so, please describe situation in Mark Hughes yourself.

No.

All right, Commissioner will now hear from city planning staff.

So I figured a quick introduction was in order.

It includes the International Building Code, which regulates building egress, accessibility, and building finishes, the International Fire Code, which regulates fire protection, the International Residential Code, which regulates construction in one and two family dwellings, other codes such as fuel gas, mechanical plumbing code, and then also the International Energy Conservation Code, which regulates everything related to energy conservation.

These base code requirements are updated through a consensus process through specific committees that are selected on a national basis through the ICC committees.

The latest version that the City of Lafayette adopted was the 2021 code package, and that was adopted effective August 1 of 23.

As I said, new version is published every three years, and as a matter of consistency, Lafayette strives to adopt those codes two years after the version is published.

So as an example, the 2021 was adopted in 2023, and the 2024 will be proposed to be adopted in 2026.

City will include amendments that are based on local conditions or processes, including work with the Boulder County Energy Cohort, which is now grown to a region policy collaborative that's led by Dr.

Cog, Denver Council of Denver Regional Council of Governments.

So in our area, I've got a quick table that shows what our neighbors are doing based on what I can find on their website or what they will be doing.

As you can see, we're pretty close to in line with our close neighbors.

You can see Broomfield recently adopted the 2024 with the Colorado Low Energy and Carbon Code.

City of Boulder has their own proprietary energy code, and they adopted about a year ago.

Boulder County adopted the 2021 package a little over a year ago.

And Erie appears to be on the 2021 code with limited amendments.

That's produced by the Boulder or the Building Policy Collaborative that Lafayette is a part of, which is a regional effort through cities in the Denver metro area, and they've produced their own code through the ICC that I'd like to propose we adopt.

And you can see that there are some other cities in the area with similar plans.

North Glenn, Golden, Longmont, and Superior.

Superior recently adopted, Golden adopted about six months ago.

And then Longmont and North Glen have plans to adopt later this year.

So proposed amendments.

And basically what this will do is just clarify the process, which is all the administration scope is meant to do.

We'll begin requiring window replacement permits for all window replacements, which is required by the base code and has been.32 or better.

We'll also plan to introduce uh regulations for radon systems for new residential.

Uh radon is known to be a cancer-causing agent in this area.

Um, and the regulations are currently contained within an appendix, which are only applicable if they're specifically adopted.

Uh fire sprinklers, the only change to fire sprinklers which were adopted with the 2023 code package is we had an exception uh which I consider to be kind of a soft landing to the builders that allowed uh builder to exempt the fire sprinkler system if they uh already had horizontal infrastructure in.

So any uh subdivisions that uh would be approved after 2023 would be required to have a fire sprinkler system anyway.

Uh so we're we're simply catching that requirement up with the current requirements.

Uh as far as the energy code specific changes are concerned, the uh basic IECC will reduce energy cost by 5.5% and energy use by 7 and a third percent in our 5B climate zone.

Uh and that's just the base code version.

So the Metro Cohort model code, which we would like to propose to adopt, will actually be strengthened beyond that, but we don't have a way to uh measure that data because that data is actually uh compiled by the PNL, the Pacific Northwest uh laboratories, uh and that's where I got that data from.

Uh and so as I said, the 2024 uh Metro Cohort Model Code uh does align with the state uh low energy and carbon code, but in a simplified manner.

Uh there's electrification requirements, which the only change to that is uh we currently had another soft landing requirement, is what I call it that exempted uh residential lots that had been platted prior to uh August 1 of 2023.

Um, and again, that was to allow uh current builders to not have to redo any horizontal infrastructure.

Uh EV requirements will propose to align with the state code and surrounding jurisdictions, and then uh future requirement that we're working on, but probably won't be able to adopt with this code package will be uh waste diversion, construction demolition, waste diversion requirements.

Uh a little bit more on that uh a little bit later.

So for current engagement efforts, uh we've created a Lafayette Listens page that has a code change summary.

Um it also has the draft code language.

Uh the code change summary is about six pages, I think, as opposed to the draft code language, which is 138 or so.

Um so it's uh been condensed and in layman's terms, and then also uh more at a high level so that uh anyone uh can read that and see exactly what uh the plans are.

Uh Lafayette listens page also contains a schedule of events and important dates.

And then that information is also on the main uh page of the building division website.

I presented at the uh SRAB meeting on May 18th, and the discussion, a couple discussion points uh centered around support for reduction in energy use, and then also uh brainstorming around high efficiency uh HVAC equipment, which will not uh be planned to be retired required because uh we have requirements from the EPA that we still have to consider.

Um but there was some good discussion about uh ways that we can encourage uh high efficiency HVAC with uh information on the website that can be available.

Um I spoke at the City Council workshop yesterday and received feedback that uh centered around uh support for the energy code and sustainability improvements, uh, and then that same desire to incorporate efficiency requirements or provide better information.

Um there was also some discussion about concern about uh the effect of new requirements on existing building upgrades, which just to kind of preface that discussion.

It was around uh how we're adopting everything as a code package, uh, and these codes are considered to be fully compatible.

Uh so existing building requirements would be in the existing building code with the exception of the energy code requirements, which are in the energy code.

So the proposed schedule includes a couple past events and then future events uh, as I mentioned, uh visited uh with SRAB on May 18th, City Council workshop May 26th.

Uh tonight visiting with planning commission.

Uh first reading is proposed for June 16th on the consent agenda, and then uh July 7th would be second reading presentation and public hearing.

Uh if approved, then staff will work through July to prepare the website and public guides for changes.

And then the effective date for the new codes would be August 1 of 2026 with a cutoff for any existing requirements for July 24th.

Future plans.

Staff is currently in the process of hiring an energy code compliance specialist, which is funded by the Dr.

Cog uh grant that the city received, and that's through the work that we do as part of the building policy collaborative.

And that position will aid the existing staff building division staff with energy code and plan review and inspections.

We'll also research strengthening energy code amendments and policies that can be incorporated into future code versions.

So right now we're working with a regional group to create the and implement the language for uh diversion requirements.

Um so they're not quite uh they're not quite fully baked yet to be able to put into this code, but they we would plan to uh implement those as part of uh probably a mid-cycle adoption, and by mid-cycle I mean you know, current cycle 2026, next cycle 2029, so somewhere in between there when when those uh uh requirements are fully baked.

Um and then that position will also help create the 2029 code adoption package and public guide documents uh for that package.

And that's my presentation.

Um my information is up there uh available by email, phone, and then I also have a link to uh the Lafayette listens page.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, we don't have the little typical slides.

All right.

Does anyone um would anybody like to kick off questions for staff?

I I have a nitpicky question, which is not even necessarily put you on the spot, just um something to consider as part of the the waste diversion discussion on the whole.

Um, you know, I I recognize that the idea of this is the the greening and the sustainability and everything.

You know, right now working in Boulder for the waste diversion, um, there's an opportunity for you know, resource is a fabulous opportunity.

It's very closely located to any projects that are going on in the city of Boulder for waste diversion.

If we were to implement that in the city of Lafayette for waste diversion, driving all the way into Boulder to divert you know, waste products there, adds a lot of sort of carbon and mileage and all of those things.

Just something to consider is if if we're gonna implement that standard here, do we have a closer resource for that diversion to happen?

Because if we're talking major remodels and all that stuff, having to go that far in order to do that adds not only a ton of carbon and all that, but a ton of time and money to projects as well, if that becomes a citywide standard.

I don't know if you've thought about that, but just like when a sort of rubber meets the road situation to put that as a citywide thing, that adds a ton of mileage and time to any project that's happening in the city is just something that occurs to me when I'm looking at that from uh from a realistic implementation standpoint, which maybe you thought about.

So I don't know.

Um yeah, are you referring to the place that's on Arapaho in 55th?

Yeah, I don't know if we have a place that's closer.

Um I know some communities that are uh in the area, like specifically Broomfield, uh has a blurb on their building division webpage that uh directs people to take stuff there, but I don't think they've implemented any waste diversion requirements.

So that's that's something that will be considered by the group and something that we want to make sure is well thought out uh before we put any of that into play because I I agree.

I'm curious if any of any research has been done or um statistics can be gleaned from how much is actually diverted, how much because I know resource will turn people away.

Um you talk to any contractor working in the city of Boulder, and they will just complain about the diversion and a lot of it just ends up in the landfill anyway.

Um it sounds really good, and it's it's a really good idea, but um, what can you really do with some of these things?

Um making sure that we're not creating yet another barrier to entry for for a small business owner, a small you know, a single resident.

Um I think we should be really careful of that.

And also, yeah, uh diversion, that's great.

But there's a point of diminishing returns.

And I'm gonna keep repeating that phrase tonight.

Yeah, no, that's totally fair.

Um I did look at the boulder regulations, and um frankly, they looked punitive uh to me, because contractors have to put a deposit up front, and then they only get a certain amount of that back based on what they divert.

So when we're looking at bang for our buck, and then also staff resources.

Um, I've got a department when we're fully staffed, we'll be fine.

Uh but having to manage that for how many permits per year uh could be taxing and then uh yeah, exactly where we get bank for our buck on that.

So it's been considered absolutely, and which is which is why we we don't feel it's the right time to put it in the code now.

Well, and we have a huge knockdown effect on affordable housing, right?

Like as a contractor who works in Boulder.

There are so many contractors who won't go anywhere near the city of Boulder because of these types of programs, right?

So you're automatically limiting a talent pool who will build, work, remodel, do anything in the city of Boulder in Boulder County.

So if we're artificially limiting a pool of people who will work in Lafayette, then you limited contractors, projects, and then that automatically drives up.

I mean, not automatically, but that in theory has the effect of limiting the pool of workforce who will build remodel work on projects than in Lafayette, which has the effect of driving up housing prices and all of those things.

And having lots of empty buildings sitting around.

Yes.

So nobody can afford to do the projects.

Which I mean I I don't think that people necessarily throw things away just because there's not somebody watching over their shoulder, making sure that they're not throwing things away.

I don't think that's I don't think that it has to have a punitive approach to make sure that people do the right thing.

I think plenty of people do the right thing because they want to.

I just think that there are unintended consequences, which again it's gonna come up a lot.

Uh I think if you make making the the right choice the easy choice, that's a much better approach than forcing people to make that choice.

Sure.

I think that's a better approach, maybe towards looking at this.

It's making it easy for people to do it the right way.

Yeah, and I I know we've concerned we've we've considered like some incentive-based stuff.

Um, like really the only incentive that we could offer is expedited permits, but then we also go back to staff limitations, um, and what does it actually take to uh expedite permits, and if everyone just says, okay, we're gonna get our expedite, get our permit expedited by following A, B, and C, then are we actually expediting permits?

Uh and then we then we have people even more upset with us because we said we could expedite permits and really you can't.

So it's it it all goes into into that consideration when we're when we're looking at the feasibility of anything like this.

Commissioner Watson.

Oh I have a couple throws off with the simple ones.

Um 36, we're talking about general liability insurance.

Page 36.

I think it's like 300,000, you can see the numbers.

Do you think those numbers should be a little bit higher?

I look at $15,000 for property damage.

And that just barely buys a car nowadays.

So I don't know about the insurance rates.

I have a million thousand in coverage.

Yeah, I used to have a million male practice.

Um if if you could look at that, that'd be I I think that might be advisable.

And then also, sure, I know we're getting away from natural gas in the city, correct?

Or like say somebody wants a gas fireplace.

I I think of that because I I know during the winter when the wind blows, sometimes we lose power for an extended period, right?

I think people that have the gas fireplaces, they might want that.

Are you gonna be able to do that?

Yeah, it's the bottom line.

If it's existing, they still have to correct.

But if if you're building the house and don't it's it's gone.

Yeah, what so ultimately with gas fireplace, furnace, most water heaters these days.

Um you lose power, you lose that anyway because power runs the pilot for those.

Um so the the old school gravity-fed water heaters, that's the only thing that's still gonna work.

Um but your 90% units, your direct vent units, if your power goes out, that unit doesn't work.

Um your furnace, I don't know of any uh furnace that's been manufactured in recent.

I did not realize that with a lot of gas fireplaces have little turning a gill cigarette lighters, flame off.

Yeah, if it's like still works, part of our inspection with uh fire pits is we'll we'll have the homeowner grab a lighter and uh actually light the fireplace to prove that it works, but there is no they just turn it on with the gas key and then they light it with uh a grill lighter.

Uh that's that fire that fire pit would still work because there's no electrical to that, but um but the indoor fireplaces where they have the the switch, it still operates off of the electricity.

Okay, just wondering.

Yes, you were I I will absolutely look into the uh liability insurance because the last thing is low, right?

Yeah, we collect it.

It's lower than everybody else.

Yeah, it is.

Yeah, you're you're probably right.

And so um the article article two, which we're proposing to make some of these changes to chapter 30.

Uh most of the language in Article 2 was created in 1973.

Uh so yeah, we're we're looking at uh updating it and modernizing it after over 50 years.

Uh so it is time to do that.

So that's I do appreciate the feedback on that.

Um you just want to touch on the sustainability thing you all were discussing earlier.

And when the whole zero waste concept first came out, it was more than just how do we efficiently um recycle waste material, it was how do we re-engineer things to not create the waste in the first place.

And that to me would be something where um you know, through the building code, maybe you might have the ability to influence the generation of waste in the first place.

So we're not focusing just on how do we recycle what we're tossing out.

So just a thought there.

Um and I'm seeing a lot of uh some references in here that kind of concern me.

Maybe I'm not seeing this right, but it's talking in various contexts.

Um about two fan uh one and two family dwellings and townhouses, not more than three stories above grade.

I thought we limited by height, not by stories.

Yeah, so those those limitations actually come out of the land use code.

So the the building code uh is meant to regulate uh structures that are uh one story to 120 plus stories.

Um so what you're referring to with the one in two family dwellings, not more than three stories, uh that is just base language in the residential code.

Um but the limitation on that with building height would actually come from the land use code.

So uh we wouldn't be making any change to building height regulations.

Okay.

Um there's a lot of uh it looks like since it's in red, I'm assuming it's new stuff about fire.

In the fire code, yeah.

Fire code.

And I was wondering, um the sprinkler systems now that are supposed to be in you know all residential uh buildings.

Um but they all seem to be based on the language water-based.

Is there any concept of being having some kind of fire suppression that's not water-based?

Because we obviously live in a drought area, and I wish some ridiculous figure quoted there about I don't know, 60 gallons per minute for an hour, supposedly is what it's supposed to be able to do.

And you know, if we had two or three buildings in the city doing that at the same time, I don't know if we'd have any water left.

So is there other fire suppression systems out there that are not water-based?

There are.

So when there's inadequate water available, um they can consult with the fire department on what we call a 904 system, and 904 just refers to the article in the building code that provides for alternative uh uh powder systems and and such.

Those those aren't as efficient as the water-based fire uh suppression systems.

Um so it is the preference to stick with the water-based fire suppression systems.

Um they don't they'll they'll only operate if there's actually a fire.

Um and you know, if there if there's a situation where there's multiple houses on fire, the fire suppression system probably isn't going to do as much.

Um but if it's uh like specifically uh small fire that starts from an electric blanket or something like that, um, only the uh head in that single room would operate.

And typically from what I've heard, when that single head operates, uh that's out before the fire department gets there.

So they do they do their job, it's it's life protection, absolutely, uh which is first and foremost the goal of the building code.

Um but as as far as water is concerned, it's not going to use a lot of water and it's not going to use any water unless it's so those those systems, as you said, if only one sprinkler head is engaged, then there is some sensors in there that turn the water off at some point, or is the water have to be manually turned off if the fire is the fire department would turn that off.

Fire department as part of their own.

It'll keep spraying until even though the fire may be up.

Um way down in stocking in the in the permit area.

And then it's talking about permits for events, and it has language in there uh to the effect talking about event personnel or event staff, which includes volunteers and says the responsible for compliance with event safety policy, evacuation, et cetera.

Now the city's uh art night out in the summer, volunteer for that.

And I have never once been given any kind of um direction on any of that information, but yet as volunteers, we are still responsible.

So how is the city going to address that from a compliance?

Are you going to make sure that events that have a permit that they actually say check off the box?

Yes, we have trained our volunteers and safety and all this other stuff, or how's that going to be handled?

Well, so there so with those events, um you'll probably see language above that that says that a responsible party has to be named.

Um the responsible party would be responsible for training the volunteers.

Uh the fire marshal may not necessarily be present when those volunteers are being trained.

Uh but the language is there that requires the volunteers to be trained because if there's any sort of event, the volunteers need to know how to react.

Um so that that would be more of an implement implementation question.

Um, and we would have to discuss how we get uh documentation that the volunteers have been trained, but it it may be as simple as the responsible party puts pen to paper and says we trained the volunteers, which does not meet the intent of the code.

The intent of the code is that it gets followed.

Well, and that's my concern because I volunteered pretty much almost all the events, and not a single one of them does anything for training volunteers.

So somebody really needs to put some teeth in that when you're handing out these permits to make sure that they understand that they do need to train their volunteers in safety procedures.

Yeah, I can absolutely uh bring that to the fire marshal's attention.

Um I was fortunate to attend one of the fire department has these seminars on now that we have wildfires and what those can turn into, how to somewhat fireproof your house externally anyway.

Um and one of the things that came up was what you should have.

Um so the issue maybe is not so much with the house, the materials on the houses themselves being necessarily flammable, particularly with new materials.

It's the fact that if you have something nearby to the house that can catch fire and produce a can continuous fire for a period of time, that will eventually ignite the structure.

And so they're talking about I don't remember the exact three or five feet distant from away from the house.

So I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of people use have been using, it's been very popular is wood mulch as you know, landscaping.

So is that something you all are gonna look more closely into from a somebody from a compliance perspective maybe needs to check that out?

Or is that something that in the code that you can say, look, within three or five feet of your house, you cannot have climbable material as landscaping.

So that right now that that language is not in the code.

Uh the current land use code requires that 75% of the front yard be uh living material, which we do consider mulch to be living material, and then the street tree.

Um so with the changes to the wildfire resiliency code uh that are going to be implemented soon by state requirement, uh then they would have to meet that buffer of five feet, and we would require that that be verified as part of final inspection.

Um of course we don't know what happens after final inspection.

Um so then that becomes a code compliance manner uh matter if if something's too close to a new home that uh shouldn't have been, then that would be when code compliant would follow up with that.

That would only be in the map mapped area, right?

Yeah, unless there's a change to the land use code.

Yeah, it would only be in the Woolley, the Wooly mapped area.

Yeah, I think I think that'd only find the weak map area.

Okay.

Which I think, right?

I'm pretty sure.

Yeah, you're you're probably right, unless there's unless there's any changes to the land use code around that.

So well, that's you just said something interesting.

Um not that everything you say is not interesting.

But thank you.

Um you said that um yeah, you better write that down.

You said that if final in terms of landscaping and and the final inspection before occupancy is given.

So landscaping has to be fine now has to be finalized by then?

In the front yard, they have to meet the minimum in front of yard.

Okay.

In the land use code.

Yep.

The backyard can be pure dirt uh as long as it meets the grading requirements.

Can I just pick up where you Frank um you mentioned the sprinklers?

Yeah.

I just want to ask some more questions about that.

Um in other municipalities, um, there's a uh size threshold of 3,500 square feet or above.

That's what Boulder County does.

Um I'm not sure what Boulder is doing right now for those residential sprinklers.

I'm curious if there's other like it seems like now it's just blanket any new residents.

Um is that correct?

Is I'm curious what other municipalities locally are doing that requiring that because that is a not only is it the dollar seventy-five per square foot, but does that number include tap fees if your tap if your water tap is not sufficient?

Um that that's a big I mean no tap fees.

Yeah.

They're tap fees are not charged.

Let me let me clear that.

There's no tap fees.

Tap fees are not charged for a sprinkler tap, no.

Um so we in 2023 when we uh presented this, we had done the research uh and determined that for an average size home, you know, 2500 square feet, uh that they could uh adequately supply a sprinkler system along with uh the fixtures within a three-quarter line.

So they would not have to increase to a one-inch tap.

Um Broomfield fully sprinklers all sizes, uh and they go with the water license uh that I believe has a tiered price based on line size.

Uh Westminster is sprinkled since at least 2009 when they're whenever they adopted the 2009 uh code package.

Uh City of Boulder does sprinkle, um, and I'm not sure of who else in the area.

I know Lewisville did sprinkle at one point, but uh I've heard that they've gone back and forth on that.

Well, because during the Marshall Fire they ran out of water, there was no, I mean, they didn't do them any good.

But um I get your point about you know the single head putting out something on the interior.

Um trying to think of what about existing homes?

Um if you is there a threshold over which if you add on a certain amount you have to sprinkle or if you um it's gonna be capped by the land use code before the building code ever weighs in.

Any addition to an existing residence is not required to be sprinkled.

Yeah.

Okay.

And and an ADU that's added where the existing residence is not sprinkled is not required to be sprinkled.

But if you've I mean if we decide we're gonna build tiny homes someday, does that mean that a tiny home has to be sprinkled?

Uh tiny homes would be regulated by the state, the home themselves, because they're not built here.

They are uh built off site, to my understanding, so they would be regulated by DOLA.

It's the same as a manufactured home.

What if they were built here?

Yeah, I mean you can if I've got a 400 square foot house and I think.

Oh, I need more to cut the water for that.

Yeah, I think the land I think I think the land use code would regulate that out.

Like if you're if you're talking about putting seven or eight tiny homes on a seven thousand square foot lot, it's not gonna make it to building permit.

You have a questioning look.

I think if I mean if they're building just prescriptively through the building code at that size of putting on a foundation, we would we would be reviewing it, right?

But multiple tiny homes on like a standard lot size.

Because I mean that would that would be the point.

Like why why would why would you build a tiny home on a standard size 7,000 square foot lot?

One example is if what the draft code says is that you can put a tiny homes in trailer park.

You can for manufactured homes.

So they can replace they can swap those out.

So they're like that's like one laptop.

Typical lot.

But also like cottage ports, we have that in the new code.

Those are you know, there's no definition for tiny home.

If you're pure tiny home, people will say it should be under like 240, 250 square feet, but you know, two four hundred I would still consider.

I feel like within Lafayette because we have a mobile home park precedent because we have that I think that is a really I think it's important to look at and and to get that result because that's how we create more attainable housing.

Some people really do want a tiny house or a small footprint or a you know and um my concern with requiring the sprinklers or with the requiring all these things um your typical homeowner your typical small business owner cannot afford to follow all of these they um they shouldn't for some of these projects they shouldn't have to hire an architect like me to to do and and there's no way around it with some of these requirements like you can't you can you can't wrap your head around it.

So I just don't want to um create barriers where all we have is out is is developers from outside the the city because they're the only ones with the the um you know the deep pockets and the the knowledge to to to wade through the process and to make sure that their bottom line is still met so this is a really I mean I know I'm probably preaching to the choir it's a really fine line to thread and um I really I like the IBC code packages in a lot of ways but this is where what are the amendments that we need to have specific to Lafayette um it's really hard to dial those in but um it's hard to always be aware of oh yeah what if we went I mean I jump from one project to the next to the next and I don't have time to write an email to the building hey I got done with this project and here's what I think you know are some ideas.

I complain about it in our office hey we've we complain about it among staff.

Yeah yeah exactly well I I often tell um my colleagues like staff of city municipalities I feel like you're in the middle of a circular firing squad you know you've got city council and you've got you've got property owners and you've got people like planning commissioners who and all and everybody wants something and um you've got the IBC.

So I just um I don't want to I don't want the sprinkler I mean right now so so if it's a if it's a mobile home getting back to here's a question it's a mobile home that wouldn't require a sprinkler system because it's manufactured off site.

But if you have a small ADU that will require a sprinkler system right?

The way the code's written yeah we we would have to we'd have to address that when we get there.

Okay so that's that is um to me I just don't see the I think the building envelope is important to to make sure that we don't have these fires jumping from one building to the other and yeah the wood fence that's a that you know that's a big part of the reason the martial fire going out of control but um but yeah there's a lot of reason um but I think it's just being careful of you know we have we have a very specific the mobile home parks a specific building type in our town that we want to maintain and improve incrementally where where it's feasible um so yeah they don't want to push everybody out by regulation that yeah excludes people with its complexity and yeah sort of impossibility of implementation given existing housing types unfortunately to move the needle on energy and sustainability without without packing people into a box like we're the options get limited limited and there's the there is the trade-off there.

Which yeah I feel like this is this is going to keep come coming up at some point we are yeah it's like the kind of thing when a point three two no you know for windows that was a good that was a really good um U-value like now it's like 0.25 or something I just want to say about costs.

No not here and it's not yeah we're we're above 4,000 square feet so we didn't have to go to the point three.

Okay.

So you mentioned that something's not made on site prefabs manufactured homes that are permanent structures once they're fixed how about those for sprinklers no they wouldn't need to be they wouldn't require the sprinklers so then what are you forcing people into you know you guys can put in a small prefab home do we want to have a bunch of prefab homes all over Lafayette?

Probably not but a do we want people to ask yeah do we want to not only that don't think small they make multi-story prefab homes so they're not small anymore.

They're kind of because they're not manufactured on site they're not required to have sprinklers I think that's a huge role from a safety perspective.

And I think sustainability and all this stuff is really important.

But at what cost, right?

Like if we say that we value sustainability in all of this, but only for the people who can afford to meet that standard.

And so we're putting that value over the value of inclusivity and over the value of people who live here and over the value of people who have been here.

Like, yeah, we want a community that only people who can afford to meet the standards of sustainability that we're setting for this community.

I don't think that's the appropriate trade-off, personally.

I'm not sure that that reflects the value that really has.

Well, for any, but like if you wanted to renovate your house, you know, and there's certain prescriptive requirements that you have to that you will have to follow.

Um if it gets too expensive, I mean, I don't know how many people I've you talk to them and they're like, oh well, you'll have to do this, you'll have to this, you know, to do this, and they're just like there's a whole bunch of things.

But then you end up with then you end up with building infrastructure or buildings in your town that just never get approved.

Um does it help if if we suggest one of the square footage limitations?

Like that doesn't solve everything if you still if you have a big house and you want to renovate it and you can't afford it, you still throw up your hands and walk away.

But at least it creates well right now, I mean, for for the sprinkler issue, like you said, if it's an existing building and you add on, you don't need to you don't need to provide sprinklers.

In the county, if you have an existing building and you add on and you hit that 3500 square foot threshold, then you do need to sprinkle.

I think that's my understanding.

Um so there's there's all these different little things.

But if if you said that thinking about it.

Yeah, I mean, so maybe it's worth considering that square footage factor.

That helps you on both ends.

It has something can we can we create a can we figure out it's not just like a wholesale, it's this or nothing.

Like can we because if we manipulate if you do build a smaller house, that's that's more sustainable.

You know, if we don't have these 4,000 square, you know, that's incentivizing people to have smaller homes to build smaller homes.

Um so I just think that's something to investigate more in terms of the sprinklers and how adjacent municipalities are doing it.

And maybe it's I don't know.

I think he's done a lot of that research.

But I think if I was going to come up here to suggest that rather than give city council some fabulous, you know, recommendation, then maybe you do think about like what is there a square foot threshold that you would like them to consider in more specific and you know, so it's I think that'll be better, right?

I know we're kind of pulling things out of thin air a little bit here.

We're kind of inventing a little bit.

Sorry.

Yeah.

We need to we do need to come up with recommendations.

Yeah, and you know, you could also use things like within a wooey map area and outside of it, you know.

Obviously, anything within is gonna be triggered, it's gonna be trumped by the wooing map anyway.

So I guess maybe that's not really a strong consideration.

Do we feel like maybe anything that's like the threshold's 1,200 square feet or a thousand square feet or below, yeah.

I think we can I I do want to, I should redirect our conversation.

We need to ask any questions of staff, and then we do need to still hear from the public.

I apologize.

So this was that this went to city council last night and it wasn't a public hearing, so we don't have that slide, and I was like, well, they should have cut that.

So I do apologize.

That was a workshop last night, so that didn't have it.

Uh one thing, should I clarify one thing?

This is as much for me as it is maybe for planning commission.

You have an existing home that's not sprinkler.

You do a detached ADU.

You do not need a sprinkler.

Okay.

Say that again, why not?

What was the so there's I guess I can't get to the internet, but there's uh oh, we can't so these are the current regulations for townhomes.

They're the same for one and two family dwellings.

So this first so this is currently adopted.

This is on the website.

This is what we are doing, except we plan to get rid of number one.

No, wait.

Sorry.

We plan to get rid of number two.

But number three and number four will be will remain.

What is underneath the little pop-up window there?

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry.

So with your first exception, though.

I mean, alterations have to exceed a turf certain target, right?

I mean, any any alteration you make, no matter how small it is, automatically you have to put a sprinkler system.

No, that's so look.

So here's the language 313.1.

Right.

An automatic fire system.

No, just two.

So the thing about one, if I put on my client um hat, I'm going to take down as much of that existing building as I can, but still allow some of it to remain so that I don't put in a spring, so that I don't trigger sprinkler.

Have you ever been to Wash Park?

Um I lived there for a while.

Yeah.

I mean, that's that's how it they I wired three or four houses where they took it down to one foundation wall and got away with all the limitations.

Well, what I'm saying is, is that what we want?

Is that what we want to do?

And you know, do we want or do we want to say this is why why do we think that we need these sprinklers and what size of to me it just it needs to be a little more driven by the size of the building?

Okay.

That that makes and I think we could discuss that.

Like what do we think?

Is that a specific recommendation?

No, yeah.

I mean, we're gonna discuss as well.

Yeah, yeah, we'll discuss that and talk about what that size might be, and then that'll be a recommendation for council.

Okay.

But just to get it, um, I should make sure I understand.

If somebody builds an ADU that's separate from their house, that that would be counted as existing house from their oh, yeah, from their existing house.

That would be counted as so you have you have an existing house, principal structure, you put an ADU behind it.

If that principal structure is not already sprinkled, you don't have to sprinkle the ADU.

Okay.

You say behind me has detached.

Yeah, behind I'm used to the ones in old town where they where they do the back alley one.

But yeah, anyway has to f the ADU follows the same rules that the main house does, whatever that is.

So if the principal structure is sprinkled, the ADU has to be sprinkled.

I'm wondering can you go down to 313-2?

Because it's like them all.

Is it the same language?

Exact same language.

Yeah, 313.2 is just for one and two family dwellings.

For our current adopted building codes, if somebody is replacing a window or door, like for like, does that currently require a permit or no?

Uh no, under the base code, yes, it would.

An exterior door window of the same size in the base code, yes it would.

We exempted that from the 2023, and that's what we're proposing to bring back for windows and doors.

To align with the base code, yes.

Any exterior window or door.

So you'd have to get us a building permit for a single window replacement.

For doors, is that just like exterior e-crow stores, or is that also interior doors for a home?

Just exterior doors.

Okay.

I'm just curious.

But you say you need a permit to replace your front door.

Is that a one-day deal?

You can walk down here and see I need a permit.

Yep, one to one to two days and a 15-minute inspection.

Okay.

Could you possibly go back to one of your presentation slides?

Okay.

You were talking about uh adopting the base IECC and talking about reducing energy costs and something else with specific percentages.

Uh at the top here?

Yeah, there we go.

Whoops.

That one.

All right.

So uh my question is how we say reduce energy cost by 5.3.

Reduce what to get to that 5.53%.

What are you reducing?

Uh my understanding would be that it would be uh the cost of operating electricity and gas uh fired uh equipment.

So if if my current building envelope at this code level is is 100%, then this building, you know, the energy cost will be 95% with this new updated energy code.

As compared to the 2021.

As compared to 21, this is 5%.

But the point being is I mean, again, compared to what?

So if you're building a brand new house, okay.

Yeah.

But it's you know, my insulation value went from uh hypothetically a five to a seven on the exterior.

So no, but I mean you're not just for renovations or what is this for?

It's a is it it's a comparison of what it would have been into the old code versus what it would what it would be under the new code.

Yeah.

So not necessarily existing or it's more about if I built a house under the 2021 code, if I build one under the 24 code, it's five point five percent more energy efficient hypothetically.

Because of the new requirements, tighter envelope, more insulation.

Well that's that's what I'm saying.

What what are you using to get there?

So tighter envelope is one of the things you can use.

There's all sorts of what else can you use to comparatively speaking?

Yeah, I mean you're saying, okay, here's a 2,000 square foot house, this is what the code was for a 2,000 square foot house.

So now I'm gonna build a 2,000 square foot house, but now it has to be that much more energy efficient.

What's the baseline for which you're measuring the efficiency?

You you might have, like I said, increased insulation values, you might have um glazing that like you said.32U value.

If the new code whatever is 0.25 U value, you get considerably less energy um, you know, heat escaping or or heat coming into the building.

Um that's a c you know, sealing requirements keep getting more and more stringent.

Um we didn't used to have to do continuous insulation on the outside of a building.

You know, it used to be fill in the base, now we have to do that for the last several code requirements.

So um that makes cost of construction go up, but it also reduces energy cost.

So how to understand that you know flow.

That is a question.

So I think yeah, I I get that it's a little bit more than that.

This this you you called out and or the staff called out in the beginning the unique amendments that Lafayette wants to make to this new code that that is the the base code is is the thing that's setting all the rules that's gonna save the five percent costs.

These are amendments proposed to that code, right?

So I guess I've I I think if I'm understanding there's stuff in that 2024 code that we're not talking about here that's requiring stricter advantage, we don't know that.

Yeah, and and that all we're looking at today is amendments to that.

I don't think we're looking at the full change.

We're not looking at a red line of the old code to the new code, right?

We're looking at just a description of ways that we want to change this new code.

So we have the we have the full draft code available on the website, we have uh the full metal cobart model code available on the website.

Uh we also have uh summary of changes available on the website.

Okay, and that's the summary of changes of 2021 to 2024.

Okay, and that's but that's not what we're looking at here.

What we're talking about here is changes that we want to make on top of whatever was in that set of changes.

Yeah, so the the presentations meant to the high level changes.

Yeah.

Um I've got all that we can go in and I was gonna say if you would have really it's definitely not a crisis.

I'm just trying to understand what we're looking at.

Um I'm not as experienced of a presenter as the planner, so I appreciate it.

You're doing this fine.

Helps me to uh understand how prepared I I need to be for uh the questions that all get.

I guess I guess for me, I and this is partially because I haven't done one of these before.

But I'm trying to catch up, I think, on on some assumptions some things that are cut maybe assumed to be understood.

Well, and then I didn't know.

And what it's it's we no no one should make any assumptions because until you have been through this process multiple times and see all the ways that it can impact a business owner, a property owner, um, you know, there's it's just um it's easy for us at this dais to sit here and say, oh yeah, that sounds good, let's be more energy efficient.

Um but the upshot is a lot.

And I just I keep thinking about the person who's lived in Lafayette in old town for 30 or 40 years, and they're gonna be like, wait, I have to get a permit to replace my single pane windows?

My front door.

Or my front door, you know, what so and on the flip side, I understand why.

Um, but I also know how hard it is to replace those windows well and get the right profiles and get the glass um and crest to butte, they don't let you replace them.

You have to take the glass out, ship it to Denver, put in um put an actual insulated glazing and put the original you know, window back in place.

I don't want to do that.

I hope we don't ever do that here.

So years years ago, we had the discussion along these lines, but where we were looking at going then was okay, here's a cafeteria menu of options, sustainability options.

You know, you can whichever one works best for you, you could do windows, then you could do more insulation, this or that or whatever.

And as long as you came up to the total, yeah, it was your decision.

And that's the same thing.

So now we've kind of we don't yeah, we moved away from that sort of thing.

Well, it's just because all of the codes have have lifted up to, you know, whereas we used to say are you putting solar panels on, now yeah, you have to have solar ready.

It's just part of the the baseline.

So but they do have um prescriptive requirements and then mandatory requirements.

So there's certain things that if you're making this change, you've got to do this.

And then if you do the prescriptive, um, and I don't even I'm used to working in the boulder code.

Uh but there's there's just different ways to do it.

Yeah, there's still kind of a menu, it depends on the scope of work.

So it's driven by are you doing more than 50% changes to the building, then okay, you've got to do all of this stuff.

Right.

Um again that and I know this ship is sailed, but that's the kind of thing that requires people to hire an expensive professional to wave through all that.

And I just worry that that's gonna mean that people won't make improvements to the property.

Yeah.

Are we still um asking that question?

Yes, we're still asking.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

Oh, exploit.

Can I are we still in the like is there another another presentation or this is the end, and I can I got EV park.

I've got EV spot questions.

I think we're still in the comments.

If we can do just some get all of our questions, we should I should be tapering down on like the discussion.

Let's ask questions of staff and then we'll do our public hearing.

Okay.

Can I ask you a series of EV?

Go for it question.

Okay.

I'm gonna just like focus on a topic here.

Uh okay.

We have projects that have already installed EV chargers around town.

Things that have do we have an idea of like what our current usage is on those chargers, like are they being used five percent of the time, 10% of the time, 80% of the time.

We have no statistics on that.

I think that'd be a super relevant statistic to have because this is gonna lead into my next couple of questions.

Okay.

So if we could get that information, I'm not trying to put you on the spawn, but I think it would help make the determination.

It was specifically asked in here how we felt about the EV charging.

So I want to answer the question that you guys specifically asked us because I think it this will be relevant.

There was some discussion in the documentation about that precisely that, that they were trying to get more um experience data before coming out with more prescriptive.

Well, as these amendments seem to lighten it, right?

Well, yeah.

And that's kind of what I'm getting at here, because I think that'd be really interesting.

So if we have more development in the future that's requiring EV parking, right?

So there'll be more EV charging stations, which means that the demand over the load of spots.

So, like, right now, imagine that each EV charging station that we have is being used 80% of the time, then we add all of these EV charging spots, so then that takes the overall demand across EV charging down to 50% of the time.

Maybe I'm just picking numbers here out of the blue, right?

So then if we've got tons more charging, then all of those charging stations aren't being used at nearly the capacity that they are.

So maybe some of the demand can go down across town if we've got a more robust network of chargers across town.

Because I do think, I mean, I remember hearing some discussion about the FOSS of redevelopment was held up by the amount of chargers that we were requiring there.

I was not on planning commission, then this could be total hearsay.

I'm sorry, your question is what?

I don't have a question.

I'm getting to the question.

Yes, so I'm just this is what I'm wondering.

Um, so the question is knowing that could some of these requirements be lessened.

Um because we'll have more chargers, because I think that that's part of the reason why I think it would be to know that.

And then also, like my question is for is there is there something to be said for does the you know number of chargers change depending on what kind of facility we're looking at here, right?

Like you're probably charging less at a grocery store than you are residential development, obviously.

That makes sense.

The other thing, and I know that this is I'm not trying to be controversial here, but this is kind of a thing.

Current estimates of EV vehicles on the road are 2.5%, I think, of like our cars on the road, which is gonna increase, but only to a certain degree.

So this is just why like I'm curious what the numbers are, and I know that that number's gonna increase, but that's why I'm I'm curious what our what our numbers are looking like.

Because if we end up putting if we're end up burdening development across town with EV chargers that aren't being used and aren't projected to be used more than 5% of the time, I can understand the argument from development standpoint from a cost burden standpoint that maybe that's prohib maybe that's uh an impediment to certain things being developed in town that this is too onerous of a requirement for people and it's keeping things from from moving forward, which is something I think we can't know unless we have some numbers on for what we have currently, what that usage is.

So maybe that's how just explain my reasoning behind why I would be curious to know what those pictures are.

Yeah, so our our thought process the in the 2023 code, uh the feedback that we got from this commission and from council was that uh they wanted uh to explore more uh charging.

So we upped those numbers from the uh state EVPV code, which is the minimum.

We can't go under that.

Yeah, of course.

Um that that number that we're going to is the state minimum that's going to align with the region the regional area.

Um and that's not a number that we can go below.

Yep.

Uh so no amount of research is going to change that.

That is that's a undeniable fact.

Uh in this room anyway.

Yes.

Um down at 200 uh East Colfax, it could be changed, but we're not gonna change it tonight.

Yes.

Uh so we're proposing to align with the state minimum, which is going to align us with the region, um, and it's not gonna uh affect developers.

It's not gonna put any more of a uh burden on developers than it would if they're in Lewisville or Erie or Broomfield, yeah.

Um I was looking at uh the proposals and on page 39 we talk about uh short-term rental.

And it says uh what they have to have in the in the apartment.

And I seem to remember that we'd recommend there be like a contact in information in the apartment on who owns it so they can contact it.

I don't know if you want to add that on there.

We do require that in our process.

Okay, so it does not need to be in the regulation.

No, and to clarify that that regulation already exists, we're not proposing any changes to it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh another one, uh the rain sensor.

You said uh that regulation already exists, we're not proposing any changes to it.

Okay, that's right.

So the contractors know about it when they're putting in a new sprinkler system in somebody's front yard to put a rain sensor on there?

Yeah.

That's it's I was just curious how they know that.

Well, if it's if it's a system where it's a completely new system, they'll have to get a permit.

If it's a replacement system, then that it wouldn't apply to them and they they wouldn't have to get a permit.

So if they're if they're replacing the backflow preventer, they're supposed to get a permit.

We probably do they.

Yeah.

But yeah, it boy, if I if I could if I could figure that out all around Lafayette, I probably wouldn't be here.

Okay, another thing I was looking at on page 105.

We're just talking about the regulations.

And so there's if you're oh, where is it?

Um see.

Oh, see.

Excuse me, I got something caught in my throat.

It's 53.

Required operational permits.

This is so nitpicky.

But it just says model rockets.

An operational permit is required for the user display of model rockets.

I'm just wondering.

Makes me really sad.

What?

Well, there's fire danger.

No brain message.

You're saying here's model rocket.

Here's a Saturn 5 rocket.

I built it, I built it from a REVER, you know, and now you're saying there's a minus.

They have they've caught there's been multiple fires that have happened around here from model rockets recently.

I know, I know, I know.

I'm just gonna cause a lot of damage.

I just look at that because I uh look at everything that's supposed to have a permit now for a small event.

People don't have the good sense to not put a model rocket in a grass area in a drought and light it on fire.

They're not gonna get a burn.

I know it's fair.

That's a fair point.

It says this is for the user display, what it implies is somebody's at the library.

Oh, by the way, here's my model rocket.

That's a good point.

I'm just saying, the display word on the issue here.

Yeah, okay.

It's not causing the problem.

So why didn't this sort of display?

Now permit to actually use one.

Yes.

See, now now we're talking with the fire thing.

And that's why I say I was looking at everything that you have to have a permit for.

You know, I'm kind of involved with the history museum here.

And every so often we'll have something in our backyard where we give away free ice cream.

But now do I have to get a permit?

Do I have to have a safety thing?

Yeah, it does.

I just look I see everything you have to have a permit for.

Um that's I was just wondering about that.

Cooking.

And then I I see with uh fire hydrants.

No, and uh god, that's page one eighteen, but they're talking about fire hydrants.

In our code does it say something about when the fire hydrants get tested.

Because what I read and hears are talking about when one's not in news, then you have to tell the fire chief.

And I'm wondering is there a schedule where they test the fire hydrants?

Yeah, that would be regulated by the public work standards inspectors.

Yeah, they do.

Oh, I've seen it, but I I just see here right they say, oh, by the way, one's broken, tell the chief.

And I'm just curious, okay.

We're where does one find out that it is broken?

Um that's one hate four year old.

But uh this is this is one I thought might be kind of interesting for us.

Because it talks about screens.

And that's uh it's talking about insect screens.

And it says if somebody has a restaurant and a lot of restaurants that have these garage drawers they open up.

This says there has to be a screen.

Or they have to have some ventilation that has a positive airflow every day only because of all the insects out.

And they just kind of a tricky one because someone's gonna come up and they're gonna want to build a restaurant and they're gonna want to have a garage door.

I can think of several.

Yeah.

And that it might be it might be confusing for us sitting up here on the panel above the audio.

So I don't know if it needs to be clarified or what.

Is that something that's been put in other codes?

Or I guess I haven't heard okay.

I mean, in Boulder you've got to have an interlock if you've got an overhead door that shuts off the mechanical system, but I don't know about screens.

I've never had to put screens in.

Yeah, just the the windscreen or the air curtain is my understanding that that'd be standard for uh openable uh like a garage door in a restaurant area.

I just I just never seen when a restaurant comes out and says, oh, by the way, garage door.

And we have a positive airflow.

Well I've I've never seen that too.

I would love to just tie on to something that you brought up here.

Uh-oh.

No, no, it's really it this is you said that fully staffed, you have five people.

The amount of permits that I've brought up in this.

If you if everybody in town was to get a permit for everything that is listed on here, which I think we can safely say does not currently happen.

Do you think that the staff of five people would be able to handle the load of permits in a reasonable turnaround time for everything here that is required to have a burn?

So I don't know uh I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

I just like this is a lot of things that require permit processing, and you guys have a huge load of things, but like holy powder and outdoor cooking tents and having an ice cream social in the backyard and all of these things require permitting with a very small staff.

It feels like maybe things could get back up backed up or out of hand very quickly.

A permit requires a fee, any kind of permit.

Yes, associated with the fire department processes operational permits.

So the permits that have been recently discussed are processed by the fire department, and I don't know what their turnaround times are for the those permits.

Okay.

So this is all fire department stuff?

You guys are building all their all parties in the fire department.

I don't know what you're looking at, but if you're between this is it are you looking at the draft code?

Hundreds of pages of things here that require.

Yep.

Are you are you looking at the the copy of the draft code?

Yeah.

So I think between pages 44 and 80 are all amendments to the international fire code.

Uh-huh.

Uh yeah, and while maybe some of this is already things you're doing.

Already things that you're it sounds like doors, the windows and doors, that one's new.

Yeah.

Um but it's just um yeah, seems a little I mean, I know in other municipalities, um, it's these are most of these are in the base fire code, just so you know.

Yeah.

And I and I know that in other municipalities it it seems onerous on staff, I guess.

And we've we've got projects that are delayed and and owners that are like, well, then we'll just won't pull a permit.

And that's just the last thing that you want.

Um and there's some GCs who are willing to do that, and there's some who aren't, and I nobody wants to be, you know.

Um I don't want people to be so resentful of having to get inspections that you know I've got a client that's just keep saying, we're just gonna shut the gate and the county can't get in.

We're just gonna shut the gate and then they won't be able to do the inspection.

That's not um my I won't be here to help you out whenever you have to deal with the problems that will come from that.

So just given that you said you suspended um the requirements for windows and doors because of roofing permits, right?

We get another hailstorm this summer.

You know, does that sort of thing happen again?

I mean, to me that says that there's limitations to the amount of workload that your staff can handle shouldn't something else blow through.

So that just would make me think.

Sounds like it's a base code thing.

It's to keep insects out of a restaurant.

Well, what I'm looking at doesn't refer to a restaurant.

It says during period from April 1st to November 30th, every door window and other outside opening required for renovation of habitable rooms.

Well, my house has a number of habitable rooms.

Oh, okay uh food preparation area is a separate thing, food service areas or any areas or products to be included or utilized in food for human consumption or process.

Well, my kitchen processes food for human consumption.

Um days.

Again, so the windows on around my kitchen, they all have to require to have screens?

I mean, um understanding technically, yes.

Yeah, that's a that's a requirement in the code that's been in there.

Yeah.

But what's the purpose of a residence?

I can understand for a restaurant because they have to comply with safety codes, but I don't know.

If I want insects in my house in my kitchen, why can I limit it?

Can I ask what section you're looking at?

At the very end.

It's three four point one.

So that yeah, that's in the screens.

That's in the international property maintenance code.

Uh-huh.

Uh and those are those are base requirements in the code.

We're not making any change to the base requirement in the code.

Um I can look at the section that there was probably wanted specifications on the dates that the uh insect screen has to be written in place for the wind so that the window can be opened and provide ventilation to the house.

Absolutely.

But again, so I think I think in this case, what we can do is if we want to make a recommendation for council to strike that language, then we can make that recommendation.

Clarification.

Okay.

So the only the only change that I made to the base code was to set the dates.

That that is in the base uh property maintenance code.

So but this is the problem we've had over the years, which has been okay, you know, we don't we don't have the staff to manage and maintain individual personalized code of Lafayette.

So like all the other smaller municipalities, we adopt whatever year code happens to be the international code, etc.

But at what point does that become onerous for the property owners and and do we want to consider actually changing that versus going this is the default, this is easy to maintain.

Administer, I mean, because sure it's a base standard code that everybody has.

So the so at least speaking to the base property maintenance code, um, that creates just the bare minimum for conditions to be considered habitable.

This is for your own home for someone that you're renting from.

Right.

We do not have the staff to go around and regulate this home by home.

However, if we get a complaint from, say, a renter, hey, my home isn't habitable because of this, and we get few of those a year.

What language do you have to defend me?

Um, you know, or uh you know, uh a home has become unhabitable to someone that owns it and uh you know it's it's a hoarder home or something like that.

Like what's the base language like 70 square foot for a base habitable room?

Uh that that language, that's what the property maintenance code is for.

So the only change that I made to that language was just to specify the dates.

Uh the only change that I made to any of the other languages, such as uh grass and shrubbery height, uh was just to specify that language.

Um but that language is not in there so that we can drive around and go door to door and verify that you have wind screens.

Um I would I would need a staff of 500 people, and I'm I wouldn't, I would be out of here.

I wouldn't force it.

But but complaint based.

I mean, yes, yes, but we but we've got to have base language.

Um so striking the base code would would make it very hard for us to defend these very basic habitability and sanitation requirements.

We have to have this base language in the code.

And in that in that case, where there were those changes made, how I'm I'm still trying to understand what I'm looking at here.

Well it wasn't red.

There were no red in the draft that I saw.

So how how do we know what's been changed in this?

Is there another way we could know?

Uh I could I could send you the draft version that we have.

In our packet, I'm just not packing the packet has the draft copy.

So it's not the original.

It's not a good one.

Yeah, so we had we had the original version.

Uh we changed it to the clean version to put it on the website.

Um but if you want to see the version with the track changes, I can absolutely send it to you.

Yeah, I think maybe track that would be great.

Okay.

I need to write down all of your email addresses and then uh run back to my office so I can send that to you.

No, are you able to send that to them?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, that that's I don't know if we can.

Yeah, I don't I don't think that's not I just to say like if if this is being presented again, that's a helpful way for us to scan and understand what from what we're actually supposed to be able to do.

Sorry, I didn't get that to you beforehand.

No, no, it's okay.

I am because I think you said that the base code, there are certain things that are required by statute that cannot be changed, like our minimum set by the state.

But that's not the base code.

Well, the base code, like these amendments that are in this draft copy.

If you go, if you open up the International Fuel Gas Code, you'll see chapter one and then add you know, this 303.4, and you have to reference when you're when you're doing a project, you have to reference both the relevant code section and any amendments that uh that the town or municipality has adopted.

So it's always looking in two different places.

These this language, a lot of this is additional to the base code.

But can it but it also can reduce the strength the strength of the base?

For instance, the the sprinkler thing in some municipalities, they will say no, not every house, only if you're above 3500 square feet.

Do you need to have a sprinkler?

I think something was referenced though that's like uh we cannot go below.

Like we are required by the state of Colorado to follow the easy parking.

That's the charging requirements.

And and some energy code energy.

What's the energy code minimums for the state?

Uh so the the state minimum energy code currently is the low energy uh and carbon code.

Okay.

And this is simpler.

You said this one.

It's the same, but yeah, the language in it is simpler, we believe, than the low energy carbon code.

And it's been it's been vetted by the state to be an equivalent.

Because this okay.

So other than that, we can we could amend anything from the base code.

We can amend it to make it more restrictive.

That's that hasn't been what I've heard tonight.

No, right.

I will say that.

We can amend, as long as we're not talking about the energy code that's required by state law, as long as we're talking about something else.

We could amend it to be less restrictive.

We can.

Yeah.

Um we would I would I would need to take those specific amendments and and research and probably come back to to the table to figure out uh or be able to present based on what we specifically would want to amend to be less restrictive.

To ensure that we're not doing damage to the well the code remember the code is a minimum for life health and safety.

Um what the goal of the sustainability uh efforts for Lafayette and what I understand the goal for the city council have been to increase sustainability efforts and energy efficiency.

And so these are the bare minimums.

Um the bare minimums for life safety.

Um I wouldn't be able to support a decrease to a bare minimum on life safety.

Um, but we can absolutely take those recommendations.

I think it depends on which life safety, you know, like the sprinkler system.

I I think you can argue that again, you're going to be you're gonna be pushing aside affordable housing for the sake of you know, in some not in every case, you know, but you're gonna you're gonna have trade-off there.

If it's a dollar seventy-five per square foot, um that really starts to add up.

So yeah, I think because of our background and in specific knowledge in this, I I think the council doesn't not that they don't appreciate, I don't know that they understand the like when the rubber I can't believe I'm saying this twice in the meeting, but when the rubber hits the road in terms of what are the cost implications of doing this, yeah.

They may not I I think they rely on us to uh elaborate on what are the cost implications for that, and they may not understand that having the sprinkler trade-off limits options for affordable housing, and so that's the kind of thing where that is the purpose that we serve is to say, hey, we can do this, but here are the detrimental effects towards these other goals that are of value to the city of Lafayette in our community.

I think that's why we're here.

Yeah.

To elaborate on, like, yes, we can do that, but there are other goals that our community has made it very clear that we value an affordable housing and the diversity and all of these things that that allows our community to have is one of those things.

And so the only the only change to the current requirements that we were proposing to make to the sprinkler requirements that are already adopted as of August 1 of 2023, is only to say that uh horizontal infrastructure or the status of it is not going to affect those requirements, and it's not going to exempt those requirements.

So it's it's not making so uh a new home that doesn't have the horizontal infrastructure that has to put in sprinklers today, as it's already been adopted, doesn't matter what size, uh, and we're not proposing to change that.

Uh the only thing that we're changing is uh, you know, if there's a development uh out there that already has horizontal infrastructure in and they submit a permit after August 1, before August 1, they would not need to sprinkler because of that exception after August 1.

Now they would need to sprinkler that.

And I think that's something we just need to discuss um because it seems like um with some of the the land use code changes we're making, we might need to rethink.

You know, with tiny homes with cottage courts, you know, that that might not make sense, but we'll discuss that.

Um if there's if we could hold off on the rest of our questions for staff, I'd like to open up uh public comment, the public hearing.

Um this time we'll hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the commission about this application.

Um speaker form if you haven't already.

Would anyone like to speak?

You can come.

We we know who you are.

Good evening, saying commissioners here.

First, I want to say, as always, when I come here, you all are extremely knowledgeable in a field, ask a lot of questions in detail.

As you can see, the citizenry decides towards the sofa here.

Staff is excellent too.

So I just want to compliment you because every time I come, I learn so much.

And it's very difficult.

I attend city council meeting last night when uh Mr.

Schumann and uh Alex might have, but Phil presented to the council.

Uh and that was same overview, no detail because it's a presentation.

Comes to you all first.

Fantastic.

My head spinning with all the questions I could have thought of, and you thought of a thousand more of them.

Uh from what you know from what I've heard tonight, uh, and it is a trade-off, and you're looking after us citizens that affordability and changeover and this and that.

But most people, most people, 90% 9.9% out here won't know anything about this.

But maybe I'm wrong.

We're here tonight, and then there's a city council presentation.

There's gonna be public hearing.

So if people get into this, the presentation will be made to city council, your recommendation, which is great.

You'll have the same old gang geared up for that who understand it.

And uh and public hearing and all that.

Uh so it may get out there.

Uh I don't know what I'm gonna say.

I want to say I I guess the only thing from CIS stands point, a little knowledgeable.

I guess you can't, you don't do anything that changes the state regulations that come down to us.

I mean, we're looking at RDBC voting code, this and that.

Uh so we can't go below that, the minimum.

So maybe some things are the night staff going research, we'll go below the minimum, but you can't, because then we're in trouble.

Uh and I'm not gonna say too much more, but like uh the citizens of and don't worry about all these permits if you got a hundred loan pays 130.

Because it I guarantee most people are gonna come in for a permit because they want to know about.

I mean, change when I heard about change, I just had my windows clean the other night and my wife did.

No, you know, but it came outside and said uh to my wife, you know, maybe you'll change this bathroom window.

I'll look I'll look inside, see many water's coming in that look outside, no.

And you know, it's one of the double paying with the hydrogen or something in between, so it's a little steamed up because it takes showers here.

So I said, no, not gonna live that long next time we can change our window.

But now tonight, I know I'm not going to change that window.

Because they're gonna cost me a thousand dollars.

Ron did not provide his address of our series and not be funny.

Most people know that they're gonna have to do this.

And you're trying to protect them, thank you.

But on the other side, it's in a mechanical great firm.

Always does my stuff here.

I try to update everything, have a nice hot performance hot water heater coming in two summers ago.

Call the guys out.

Inspect everything, the air conditioner once here because I'm anal.

So how much longer is my furnace going to last, you know, uh blaze?

You know, Ron, you're good for a couple years now.

But when you do change it out, and this is automatic before which, you know, a lot of you know, the new whatever national code's gotta be the certain freance out and ray on, right up, you know, it's all coming in.

So under the radar, I got but anyway, that's going to change.

So the first thing people are gonna know when they have to get a new hot water heater, you have to get a new furnace, and you have to get a new AC.

It's not gonna be coming here.

The contractor's gonna say, man, you gotta get this new 95% high efficiency, you know, thing.

So uh I mean this is real this is really good, and I just appreciate the dialogue on it's a it's a lot to it.

And uh, you know, it's a lot.

So the city council, you're right.

I mean, not planet, they don't have a chance to get to questions, they don't have all the knowledge on us, and you've given the input and a public given input, and we'll see what happens.

So I just want to say thank you very much for this dialogue.

It's it's very eye-opening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public who'd like to speak?

Thank you.

All right.

Um does staff wish to respond to public comment.

Nope.

Anyway.

Yes.

Other than to say, I don't need to know where you live.

Nor do you want to.

All right.

Um does commission have any further questions for staff?

I imagine we will as we get into some discussion.

Um that comes to mind.

I guess my question was um based on on Ron's comment.

What is the minimum that the state codes are based on?

Are they like based on a 2021 IBC, or what is like do they have a minimum IBC, or is that only for energy code that the state No, so the state uh has minimums for the National Electrical Code.

Okay, they have amendments to uh the plumbing code, the fuel gas code, and then the energy code board was created three or four years ago, and now they're creating the the energy code backstops that we have to follow.

Okay.

Because I mean, I know some of these small towns on the eastern plains, they're gonna have no interest in adopting some of this stuff, quite frankly.

Some of them don't have building codes.

Some of them don't even have okay.

So if they don't have any building codes, that I guess I know what that's yeah, what that looks like too.

Which is not ideal.

Um, I mean, to that point, you know, of of not getting permits and not upgrading your buildings.

We all know of the big landlords in the county who shall remain unnamed, that we run into problems with their buildings and they are not saleable because they haven't made the updates that they need to make, and they haven't kept the the, you know, you know, like not talking about anything specifically, but um slumlord of Lafayette, he died years ago, so much problems.

This one's still very much alive.

You know, there's others.

Um but yeah, that point of diminishing returns.

I don't know if there's a municipality that is just really nailing it between, you know, just enough building code and and not too much.

But um I sure can't think of one.

Yeah.

You mentioned that you took uh the the sustainability board.

Did you get you got input from them, right?

Yes.

What specifically was that all of what the you know what was their input in terms of were there any changes to the base code that they were looking at?

Uh more restrictive or there were no recommendations that they made.

Uh more just information sharing.

Um they brainstormed some options to encourage high efficiency HVAC replacements.

Um there were a few questions about EB ready and direction.

Um questions about electrification and what happens if an all-electric house loses power.

Uh window permit process questions, uh support for reduction in energy use.

Uh and curiosity about the incorporation of the wildfire resiliency code, which is also a state minimum code that we'll uh update.

Can I ask the same question about well?

I've lived in old town for 16 years.

Um I'm gonna say the infrastructure in parts of old town is not um it's not so reliable all the time.

It has been getting better, but it's not it's not great.

Uh it's not it's not great all the time.

And we have lost power sometimes for periods of time.

Seems to be always on that day in the winter where it's 40 below zero, and uh, you know, I do not have a totally electric house, thank goodness, because otherwise that would be a problem.

But I think about this from a logical standpoint of like, let's say everybody goes all electric and all electric heat pumps and everybody's got EVs and we get a windstorm and the power goes out for days.

Your power wall keeps you up and running.

Yeah or your Ford F one fifty lightning.

Powerwall specifically.

Yeah.

Yeah, sponsored by um Yeah, and I you know batteries.

They've discontinued um some of these EV um truck lines and things like that.

Uh it's a test battery.

Um I guess my question is from a city standpoint, are we prepared to make the necessary infrastructure upgrades to support the electrification that we are now requiring each household to do with these upgrades to the code.

Because if we're trying to upgrade every single person and every single household as we move forward here, if we're not upgrading the city's infrastructure at the same level, I do not know if the city's infrastructure can handle this.

And I don't hear the city infrastructure is it Excel.

Yeah, Excel infrastructure.

I don't think that's gonna do anything.

Other than all our solar panels, we don't have any infrastructure.

But right, the this this is a relevant concern is forcing everybody onto a grid that does not have the capacity to support this.

I understand the goal here.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this goal.

But if we're putting the electrical cart in front of the you know, natural gas force here or whatever thing is, if we're moving ourselves as a city forward onto something that is gonna collapse beneath the weight of our good intentions, we have a problem.

We do, but I don't think that's actually a problem because Excel is a little bit more.

You've got some energy not yeah, and that's the same thing.

No, I think that um I I I think that this is part of what the utility is planning for.

They're planning for load growth, they're thinking about all the different kinds of ways that more electricity is gonna be needed.

They do a planning process with the state PUC where they suggest what they think is gonna be needed and they get permission to do the upgrades.

So I think this is maybe outside I I don't think this is the driving issue.

I don't think we're gonna get ahead of Excel's planning for electric load by building.

And while requiring more electric electrification, we're also requiring at the same time the solar panel ready, you know, to have to so that you're offsetting, you know, yeah, you've got to be electrified and you know, here's your solar panels and put in battery.

That's great for like our new parts of it.

So for the stuff that is here, it kind of leaves things in light.

I I think they're I think they're planning for this.

I mean no, they're gonna come into town and do something with all of our poles and wires and things.

I mean, I'm just the city has a role to play, or the county has a role.

Somebody has a role to play here in making sure that we're not left behind, I guess.

Which may be beyond the scope of this group.

I think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

But yeah.

But to the city to staff to the bigger people who have the role to play in this, are these conversations happening is my question.

Which is probably for you know, higher up people than me, but I want to make sure that that's something that's being taken into account.

We have problems.

We have a window wires and we had a hard hard representative.

Interesting.

Sounds like a conversation.

And cell's providing all kinds of rebounds if you're putting in a new heat source pump and new AC.

Yeah, that rebate does not cover anything for the upfront cost, but yeah.

I don't know exactly how Excel goes about its load estimation process.

Like I don't know if it reads the city codes in its service territory to figure out what's happening.

But it but it is anticip but it is trying to anticipate and things like EV adoption and things as well as part of that part of that as well.

So I I suspect that this is covering as far as like generators.

We have a franchise agreement with Excel.

Okay.

And through that franchise agreement, the city can bring up issues to them.

Escalate issues that you know they need to resolve as part of that franchise agreement.

But that's again something way beyond our scope.

And I think it would be great.

But as the planning commission who's discussing this, maybe one of our recommendations to council is that we anticipate that this may create a problem down the line and so that council should direct whoever it is who's responsible for that franchise agreement.

Talk to Excel about our concerns.

Well I think I'd say I I think I would I would frame that as you know we suspect that if this code is adopted it could lead to you know greater load growth than otherwise might have been anticipated here and I we want to make sure Excel's planning for that.

But I I I think they are.

Or just that we're in uh we're paying attention.

That's all market just to I think I mean what what they're proposing in this we're we had this electrification was already happening in the previous code, right?

Correct.

Yeah for sure.

Yep.

So the the only thing that's changing is we're uh eliminating the exception for uh subdivisions that or residential lots that were platted before uh A1 of 2023.

So uh electrification requirements there there's a little bit to unpack in that discussion but hopefully I can respond to everything.

Um electrification requirements only apply to new buildings they would apply to additions on uh buildings that have an addition so the addition would have to be electrified um however there are exceptions to that in the energy code that if you extend a duct into an addition you don't have to uh electrify that furnace suddenly um so there's there's exceptions uh aspects of that nature are thought of um but the the building code also doesn't regulate electrical infrastructure or gas infrastructure um the building code is meant to regulate uh systems that are downstream of a meter um so it's downstream the the concerns with excel which are certainly valid um are not that's more of a land use code or that kind maybe or just yeah yeah that's probab that's more of a regional discussion with the with the franchiser um regarding electrification so if I'm doing for instance a kitchen renovation um can I still install a dual fuel um range or if I'm doing a gut like what is that threshold do I have to have an electrical electric range um how how does that work like if you already like if I'm existing house and I'm remodeling my a kitchen I gotta get a building permit.

Are you tearing down the entire house?

No.

Then you don't have to as long as you're doing so as long as you're just putting an addition on um there's no um okay do I have to do dual fuel can I put in a new um gas gas range.

You can do a fully gas range as long as you're not tearing down the entire house.

Yeah so uh the section says all new buildings shall be all electric and then it gives the exceptions which are involuntary destruction so natural disaster and then propane devices in your backyard.

Because again what's important about that is if I'm again small house in in old town and I've got a hundred amp panel I can't add I cannot I think I can't add a 30 amp stove electric stove because I I'm out and then I've got to replace my whole panel I've got to possibly upgrade my service and um you know I don't I can't afford that I can't even put a blender into my one more blender in my house and it's gonna take the whole thing down.

So it's that kind of thing as we as we make these incremental improvements like I'd be curious to look at the I'd be curious to look at the reduced energy cost what that percentage is from a code starting I'm not asking you it's just hypothetical like in t in 2009 what that improvement was from the previous code and in 2012 and then in 20 you know so how much because there comes a point in which we can't keep getting better with you know like we can't keep reducing energy costs and um without going to real extremes.

So um when we're starting with two by four exterior walls that may or may not be insulated in the first place um I I just want to um find again strike that balance between affordability and pushing out people that um I don't know how to recommend if anybody's got language for how we can make that recommendation to council but um it seems like what you're asking for so if you're but if you already have an existing house an old house yeah okay and you're renovating all right you have to do up I mean you have to go like past 50% for ele for electricity for for to up to have to upgrade to not for electrification right or no that's the requirement for electrification electrification shall be required for all new buildings.

Yeah just new that's no but I mean I'm talking about renovation of an existing build because that's what you seem to be focusing on.

Yeah that is what I'm focusing on and and there are thresholds in for instance the existing building code you you look at that to determine okay I'm doing an alteration level two therefore I don't need to do um elect uh energy I don't mean need to meet this threshold for the energy code um it's just I just keep thinking about people that that just want to improve their property and they don't want to hire me and that's fine.

Um it's just I just keep thinking about people that that just want to improve their property and they don't want to hire me.

And that's fine.

Like I don't I don't want them to it's just very difficult to wade through this for for your average person, your average contractor who's you know maybe been building stuff for 10 years and just wants to do to do a job and and you know do a bedroom addition for somebody.

Um I don't know what the what the recommendation is, but it's just so many hoops and it's so onerous.

Um I learned something every time I submit a building permit and it you know we do it all the time and it's still like oh you missed that or oh that change, oh um there comes a point of dementia returns.

I don't know what that is.

Um other uh questions for staff, or is anybody want to um have any more discussion and specific recommendations?

That's what they've asked for.

I have two questions and one we've maybe beaten over the head 19 times.

If because the comments around there was a comment you made earlier around certain things need to be done to an addition on a home, just just for the addition.

If somebody's doing an addition on a home or or an addition to a non-residential property, does that addition need to have solar put on top of it?

No.

Okay.

Uh second question going back to some of the EV charging stuff.

If somebody is if a non-residential property is kind of redoing their parking lot, whether it's like an industrial employment parking or commercial parking, does that parking lot that's getting redone, if it needs any sort of public works or other permits, does it need to become EV ready if it's a renovation to a parking lot, or is it the EV ready only required for like new parking lots for for subdivisions or projects?

So the EV re ready requirements uh have to do with the number of parking spaces that are there.

Um and uh can be triggered by the number of parking spaces in a building that's undergoing a change of occupancy or uh renovation that's over 50% of the square footage of the building.

Change of occupancy like the class, like going from from like B1 to B, like that type of change of occupancy.

Yeah, from like B to M or M to A3.

So not like if there's a for example, let's just say the the Walmart.

If the Walmart just wants to redo their parking lot, it doesn't have to become EV ready.

How many parking spaces are they adding?

No and overlay.

Let's say they're not even necessarily adding, but they're they're redoing it because the concrete's 20 years old.

Like maybe they're not adding more spots, it's maybe the same number of spots, but if they're renovating the parking lot, does it need do they need to make a certain number of them EV ready now?

So EV EV ready regulations at the state level and what we're proposing are regulated by new parking spots in that context.

Okay.

So you add one parking spot, you're in a certain uh section of the table, you add 50 parking spots, you're in a certain section of the table, and then it applies to whether you are an R2, which is uh apartment multi-family, or not an R2, which would be all other occupancies, and there's a percentage trigger for ready uh installed capable and then hybrid capable, which will be a new one that I'll have to remember.

Cool.

So yeah, renovation, no change in occupancy, no real changes in the proposed stall count.

They it can doesn't have to become.

No, and I mean, to your just curious, I don't want to.

Yeah, to your uh point on the Walmart, they would get credit for the I think eight DC fast chargers that they have in that parking lot.

Okay.

Cool.

Uh I have two questions.

I don't know if there really are scope, but there was some language just around the the L E C C specialist and the grant.

How many years are we anticipating having a consultant or specialist on that?

So the grant can what run through 2030.

Um the grant does run for multiple years.

It's a federal grant.

So we are subject to those requirements.

So we we have front loaded that around that money um to to try to use it before the 2030 uh end date.

Um we're not quite sure when we'll use it, but we've projected end of 28, maybe mid-29.

Um and then we're not sure what what we'll do with that position.

Okay, gotcha.

That answers that then.

Um I think for our discussion, I'm I do think it's I do think the square footage conversation would be good.

Uh-huh.

Not specific to sprinkler or talking about sprinklers.

I don't know, does it yeah, and it be related to any of these other concerns that you've raised as well?

I think because we're in the we're looking at the land use code, so I think it's a question for staff or for for a recommendation for council to um consider making a um a low maximum square footage, you know, below which you don't need to have sprinklers, so that if you're less than a thousand square feet new or something.

I hate to bring this up, but so what he was saying is typically modifications you meet are are more restrictive, not less than what the base code is.

So we're looking to do less restrictive than the base code.

So then the question becomes from the city's perspective: do we have a liability issue since that's a safety thing?

Honey, our attorney can answer that question.

Do we open ourselves up to liability if we do less safe than well, and I mean there's a lot of precedence for it in other municipalities where they're they're doing that.

Um I know in Fort Lepton, I off the top of my head I can't remember what we ended up doing because I don't work with the building permits too much.

But we were looking at excluding certain housing products from the sprinkler code.

So it it's something that we we could look at and we're looking at, whether it's just striking a line or making it less restrictive.

I don't I don't think it opens us up that much.

Well, and I wonder if you don't know if the journey needs to be a good idea.

Sprinklers holy catfish.

And I wonder if there's a way to make a concession to like you were saying.

It's a little winter power group zone and downtown wallfire, yeah.

Yeah.

And you've got your sprinkler system there, and nobody knows to turn off the water or drinking.

Yeah, yeah, that's a recipe for very true.

I just think of our friends in Texas every year.

Oh, I may have a freeze down there that's unhearable water pipes.

I was thinking about that.

But I also wonder if there's a concession for um, you know, the concern of if we're if we're thinking about wildfire burning through.

So do we have a minimum setback between structures if we're looking at a cottage court situation?

You know, I think to Commissioner Phillips' point, even if old town is not in a wooy overlay, which it is not, it is still best practice and my recommendation to everybody that you clear flammable materials from the land foundation.

I do not care if it's code or not.

It is the responsible thing to do.

The only person who's gonna suffer if your house burns down is you.

So you might as well do it, even if it's not required by code.

But I think you know, having the we'll see the interesting thing is according to code, the landscaping is in front of the house is the only landscaping required.

That's the only landscaping.

So that's where we could as far as the landscaping material.

So away from the right, the material.

All right, but it's not required around back.

Well, people landscape around the back of their homes.

So shouldn't you have the same exclusion of uh I think that fireable material away from all of the service structure?

That's just exactly what we're doing.

That's just best practice in terms of the scope of this tonight, like that's gonna be under the wooy code.

Yeah and that there will be some some requirements there.

I'm just saying that's best practice.

Just anyway, but if we're talking about preventing, you know, if we're talking about sprinkling in a small structure in order to prevent the spread of fire, maybe set back from the properties could be a way to help.

Yeah.

Well, and just um having a class A, you know, exterior.

I'm not sure what that help.

Um is that included anywhere in this?

I can't even remember.

No, that's gonna be in that's gonna be in the wooy in the future wooy code.

Yeah.

But will there be any implications for, for instance, having a class A exterior or having not you know not allowing vinyl windows to be installed in um is that something that you're starting to think about?

Uh so right now we're planning to adopt the wooy code uh as it's written by the state.

Uh that only be in that area.

That those would only be in the hazard areas, yeah.

So uh based on the wooy map that is generated.

Only in the housing areas within the wooy map.

Within the wooy map, yeah.

So other housing areas won't have the same constraints, they won't have to do um Correct.

So I think there's a um I guess that might be a recommendation of can we can we do a trade-off with if you put this kind of siding on and if you make sure your ventilation is is you know, you may not maybe don't have to do sprinklers.

Um you have a your ventilation or your your vents uh are screened to a small amount.

These are protecting for different things, aren't they?

One's protecting from wildfire.

House firing house.

Yeah, that's true.

But the the house fire one, I I think the square footage limit makes sense.

You have fewer residents, you have fewer people at risk in a smaller unit, theoretically.

And it's um I just keep it.

Easier to escape from the other.

I keep going back to the affordability piece.

Yeah.

And there's ways to build a a building envelope to make it very um less likely to burn.

You know, or or um what seems like a reasonable square footage we'd want to recommend?

I don't do we have any other square footages like that, like classifications of small to big no.

I was scrambling a little bit trying to figure out uh like our cottage court, or I think we're calling courtyard housing product type.

That is minimum building dimensions of 40 by 40, but it still can be multiple stories.

So you could, you know, 1600 square foot for ground floor.

Uh if you go to two stories, obviously it's getting quite large.

So a cottage court house is 16.

That's the maximum.

That's the maximum that would that's a maximum footprint.

That's a huge house.

That's big.

1,600 square foot footprint.

Yes, that's what we're doing.

That's what they have to say.

Yeah.

Yes, it's larger than I was.

That's not much of a cottage.

It's more of a lot of mini.

That's a good one.

But it's driven by the lot size.

My house.

Yeah, it's driven by a number of different things.

That's just the maximum size.

Uh I mean 1,200 square feet's kind of a common number I've seen with cottage courtyards homes.

And that's regardless of the separation on those, is that gonna be your two hour wall, or is it gonna be a five foot there?

Yeah.

I don't that'll not be altered by the land development code.

So uh I'm trying to think of some other, you know, uh uh I'm reading some stuff, uh hearing some stuff that a lot of that people are looking at how do we incentivize kind of three-story, one and a half bath, you know, 1200, 1400 square foot homes again.

Like that's that's a thing that I know some community.

We haven't even talked about single staircase egress.

It's nice.

Yeah, can we talk about that next?

So uh three stories.

It's hard.

We don't have like a you know, we don't have like a real strong section of the code that would points to anything like that that we could kind of link together currently.

Well, and there's an argument to be made that it would be easier to sprinkle a cottage court style because you you know you're gonna run one line in, you're gonna build it all, you know, you're gonna be able to to install.

I mean economies of scale, basically, would come into play.

Or I think about the the issue is with tiny homes with smaller, um if I want to build a small house, um is there a square footage definition for tiny home?

No.

There used to be a house.

If you're in Texas, it's 1500 feet.

It's bigger in Texas.

Yeah, that's an a few questions, Darcy, since you are a proponent, big proponent of tiny homes and cottage court and that kind of stuff.

Based on what we've seen with developers, I mean, who's actually ever gonna build it?

No, I don't know.

I mean, unless we incentivize it something.

Yeah, I just don't know what this is a way to incentive.

Yeah, this is I mean if you say okay.

It doesn't have to sprinkle, maybe they're gonna be a little bit more.

Yeah, I don't think that's the incentivize people to build them.

I mean a thousand square feet is big.

Yeah, that's bigger than my house.

Okay.

I think I mean to me it should be along the lines of the ADUs or smaller.

Yeah.

Um even the ADUs, those don't seem particularly tiny, you know, some of the even the upper level, you know, when it's 700 square feet or something.

And are we thinking are we saying a thousand square foot a unit?

So like if it's the house like new lot, house in an ADU, each of those is eight hundred square feet, but because each of those is individual, those that wouldn't need to get sprinkled.

Yeah.

I I don't know if that would be, you know, and that's that's maybe a question, maybe there just needs to be more data gathered.

You know, what would it take to um incentivize?

Yeah, having smaller homes if you want to having a lower carbon footprint, which we want to.

Sprinkler talking about $1.75 square foot.

So I guess what like what do we see?

If you take the average lot in old town, which is what 8,000 square feet.

So they do 7,000 square feet.

Okay.

So I mean, but we're when you guys imagine cottage court, which is I mean, what and what are the limits on a 7,000 square foot lot in old town?

You know, we have some of these places that are what eight units on a lot, something like that.

So if we divide that out, so you do eight units on a seven thousand square foot lot.

Yeah, it starts and then if we have And then if you're looking at where your lot coverage ratios are, then what kind of size unit are we looking at?

And that might be the way to work back from what is our that's the limit of where we're calling our tiny house because that's the lot size that makes sense in Lafayette.

Not in Texas, not anywhere else.

But here.

In our town with our form that we already have in place with our lot sizes.

What's what's that look like?

Are you doing math over there?

Uh yeah, I I you lost me a little bit though.

Okay, so 7,000 square foot lot, eight units with our lot coverage ratio.

How big are those units?

Uh well exactly.

Oh boy, that's serious.

I've got a check.

I do not know what's code off the top of my head.

I think I do it.

Is it 40%?

Oh forty.

It's 35%.

Yeah, 30 sounds about right.

I think it's 35.

There's bonuses if you preserve certain things and do it for a preservation, but I think it's 30 to put the five.

So it's a 2100 square foot footprint.

You know, it was 35%.

If it's 30% long, yeah, yeah.

I'm double checking.

So I'm taking the old town overlay real quick.

I think it's 35% of the old town.

But well it depends.

Yeah, it depends on if you're keeping your bits and pieces of your own.

Yeah.

Well drum roll.

If you found it.

30%.

So the whole overlay area.

So that's old town residential and some of the overlays.

So yeah, 2100 square feet divided by what you say eight.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So you're looking at 262 out of a footprint and then second story, so 520 square feet.

262 square feet taken outside the staircase.

And then goes to the second story.

Yeah, those places are tiny then.

So uh no.

They are really tiny.

This is a tidy house.

Well, no, those are the but this is good because this is what we have in already existing.

And so maybe that's like what we're looking at is these are our affordable or if if it's that's what we're preserving as affordable, like they're not huge.

They're not these single family places.

They are these tiny houses that are portable in our existing infrastructure.

It's not 1500 square feet is not a tiny house.

No, no, no, no.

No, no, no.

Yeah.

Um I mean, if I've got 2100 square foot footprint, I might put three units on there.

Yeah, I mean, I'm gonna call it still a 40% lot ratio because we're putting in a multifaction.

But I want to make it clear that in old town we're not proposing any changes with this code.

And we're and we're not putting it in.

We're not gonna be putting seven grade uh uh tiny homes on any home in all in any lot in old town.

I just want to make sure it's clear anybody watching these two.

Just doing theoretical pitchforks if you go down that.

Yes, yeah, yes.

If you call it under 500 square feet.

Well, I mean I I think I f I found this argument actually pretty compelling.

That's that's true.

Yeah, that doesn't actually feel like a it's a dollar seventy-five a square foot.

It doesn't include the tap fee.

It doesn't include.

No, no, but that's just sprinklers.

That's not the everything else that goes.

Yeah, just the sprinkler.

I'm just saying, like I'm saying the theory.

I it's not the same.

My reason for wanting to suggest we reduce the people to install it.

It's not the well, is that price not like baking that?

That's it doesn't no that like it wouldn't if if you needed an additional additional water, you know.

Nothing costs a dollar seventy-five square foot.

That's fair.

Literally nothing.

Yeah.

Screws.

Do we know what it would have what's a more realistic all in cost for it?

I guess it do we think it's large enough that it actually does make this a significant cost savings.

Okay, so kind of to set a realistic baseline here, okay.

My house is a pre-fab, which is built somewhere else and move to the lot.

Okay.

Nine about 900 roughly 50 square feet.

Okay.

The cost of all my city fees was more than the cost of the house.

So if you're talking about saving 17, I mean based on all those other city fees, it's nothing.

Yeah.

It's literally nothing.

Yeah.

I mean, I think all the fees together were like a and we're talking 10 years ago is like 120,000.

Just for the city fees, tap building, whatever.

So if you want to impact cost, this ain't gonna do much to incentive.

This is the hardest.

And that's where it becomes like really hard when we're looking at each thing individually.

And we're doing the code update, and it's just it's yeah.

It's incremental to the point of what was in 2009 versus now, like it's just it's so hard to cohesively understand the impact of this.

Like it just so hard to cohesively understand the impact of this.

Well, and throwing total power in the case.

Is my my interest in suggesting reducing this requirement for smaller places was a was cost-based, and if we don't actually think it's a significant cost.

And until until we had information, you know, like we we got some immediate feedback from developers on EV chargers.

They said no, this is this is cost prohibitive, we can't do this.

So that's why we're here making that change.

So yeah.

Okay.

So was that was that an argument that we have to do.

No, that's the argument that if it's a problem, we'll hear about it.

Yeah, yeah.

And I mean this has been in place.

I guess we haven't heard about it.

Maybe we haven't heard about it.

So um so maybe it's not such a problem.

That's part of our that's part of the defense, though, is we're not creating a new code, we are accepting a base code that is a national code.

So they can't come back and say, oh, cost too much.

Well, that's a national code, buddy.

I mean, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

We're glad you didn't come to the meeting where we talked about whether we did it or not.

Um is there a a directive on where what we need specific recommendations on?

I don't know if there was a slide.

Okay.

Uh we're just looking for recommendations on council.

Do you agree with our direction to adopt the code?

Our recommendation is that we uh keep to occasions of adopting uh the updated code every three years.

Uh the reason for that would be uh keeping updated codes helps us maintain uh the latest developments of technology.

Um and then also allows us to uh revisit our codes every three years, we can clear up any language that we think is vague, which we've discussed tonight.

Uh and we'll get we would get to do this again in three years.

So the recommendation it from staff is to recommend approval of these codes.

Do you've heard this exhaustive discussion of here today?

I've loved it.

Do you do you I mean you've read this, you know it way better than I do.

Some of the folks may know more too.

But do you do you you feel like this is currently walking the right balance of trying to push for sustainability without becoming prohibitively overpowered?

I would I would not be sitting right here or standing over there or bringing this to the planning commission if my recommendation was not accept this and recommend it as written.

And that's that's 10 years of being in the inspection industry, that's 15 years before that of being in the electrical industry, so I do know those pains.

Um and I you know we I talk to the contractors every day.

Um so I do know those pains of boy, we really don't want to do this.

Well, there is a reason for it.

Um we do hear we do hear those, we do hear those cost pains.

Um, you know, especially when someone gets an invoice for a new house and sees you know fifty, sixty thousand dollars worth of water fees uh and they say why is the cost so high?

Can you find us water?

You know, so it there I mean there's there's been a lot of good discussion about balance.

Uh I'm not gonna deny that.

Uh and you know, I've I've gone back and forth on okay, was I actually prepared for planning commission or was I not?

And what what should I be prepared for in three years?

Um but no, I honestly I flat out straight up ask for you to recommend these codes is that I would not be sitting here uh asking you to recommend this if I didn't think it was a worth uh code worth recommending uh as is absolutely if we want to make recommendations about changes to the language.

Um we can we can talk with the uh affected departments uh about that if we need to come back on fire sprinklers.

Um we did uh when we adopted the 23 codes, uh we brought the fire department in to meet with planning commission.

We met with uh city council on three different occasions and did talk about the the trade-offs.

Uh you know, one between building separation where um you know where the fire rating separation goes from five feet to three feet, um just looking at uh single family housing codes.

Um but then also how you can separate out um you know in a new subdivision, you can separate out uh hydrants, you can have longer cul de sacs.

We talked about those trade-offs.

Um obviously the fire department is going to be uh supportive of no amendments to this code.

Um so when we do bring those recommendations, uh we do have to take any recommendations made and say, well, we are gonna need to hear from the fire department if we need to bring the fire department in front of planning commission to to rediscuss fire sprinklers, we can absolutely do that.

Um so when we do bring those recommendations uh we do have to take any recommendations made and say well we are going to need to hear from the fire department if we need to bring the fire department in front of planning commission to to rediscuss fire sprinklers we can absolutely do that but um I I can tell you from my standpoint of being here three years ago um my recommendation is not going to change my recommendation is stick with what we've got in the code um and if if we do see an influx of tiny homes coming in and we determine that something with fire that fire sprinklers is is prohibitive then I would say we revisit that then you know as as far as the uh single exit you know over two stories that um that you spoke of uh any changes to the code there's no way we're getting fire on board with any of that I can tell you that right now um they're gonna be a hard sell on that as is just because we're small city small resources uh when we talk about life safety and fire fighting um getting having the equipment is expensive it's expensive to maintain um so that the the the limit and so this went back and forth in the state and they came up with five and they came up with it in bigger cities because I think Boston and LA and Honolulu have adopted similar requirements.

And where they ended up on it was a city of a hundred thousand or more that has uh dedicated accredited fire department.

So we talk about cities of over a hundred thousand that have that Denver I think the Springs does Aurora and then we start to taper off Lakewood where I'm from uh they've got West Metro but that's not their own fire department that's a regional fire department I don't know whether they're accredited or not so I don't know whether that requirement would apply uh to them so that's really what's the height of the ladder is is kind of what it comes down to.

Yeah it is um I mean five stories you're gonna be over seventy five uh feet that won't be allowed in Lafayette anyway and we're gonna I mean we're gonna get there before heights but I mean even if we did want to have a future discussion about three stories for multifamily and and doing that you know if if we would regulate that which wouldn't be regulated out of the IRC that would be regulated out of the IBC and it would be required to be sprinklered anyway.

But if we if we did go anywhere with that with you know residential amendments and then putting putting that burden on the that potential burden on the fire department I know we couldn't even have a discussion about that at least not with not with any chance of support.

So hopefully hopefully I haven't gone on a tangent but I appreciate but it but it is you know it's it's good discussion it's good food for thought and it it you know reminds me that um you know there are there are burdens to this you know we're not we're not trying to sit behind the glass wall and you know read code language to people like we do understand that these are that these are real problems with with real concerns um and you know like I said 10 years in the inspection industry um and then 10 years before that on the contractor side um you know as I said I I wired some of those homes in in Denver that uh were you know got a beautiful view of Wash Park and they tore down the bungalow to one foundation wall and somehow got around all the zoning requirements for that.

So I I remember all that I'm sure it's still going on but I haven't done any of those in 15 years.

So that's good.

I think maybe for it's it's yeah as this goes to council maybe part of what we're saying is we just want to acknowledge that we have multiple goals in the city including sustainability and affordable housing and we recognize that sometimes those come into conflict and just want to make sure everybody's pay attention to the unintended and unintended consequences of if somebody can put a prefab home in the middle of old town and meet all the requirements what what could that really look like you know what if that cheaper than stake built that's what it looks like well and and sometimes quite efficient.

Oh yeah very energy efficient very waste efficient.

Mine was put in right at a code change.

So it was already pretty tight the envelope but they had been they had to like do all kinds of crazy things to make the envelope even tighter so yeah those things are well I can tell it's windy because I can smell the wind blowing from the houses older I guess how do we feel about the same for same windows and doors um what?

I'm sorry like a so the window door um permitting permitters and so you were talking about the experience of all the building what why do we need the door new door permit?

What why do we need the door, new door permit?

What is that for?

So this would only be for uh egress exterior doors.

So your front door, your back door.

Um, you know, one, we're looking for safety, is it tempered?

Um, and then two, we're making sure that the U factor uh meets the code requirements there.

Same thing for uh the size for size window replacements.

And the city gets a permit fee.

Well I can understand the window, I think a little bit more because like the tempered glass and the seat, like that aspect.

I don't know if the door part, like I I'm not gonna sit on this very strongly.

I just I feel like it's worth just poking at a little bit and seeing how the other folks feel.

I just like to know too that the door and window thing helps us sometimes in planning uh get to like historic properties and things that maybe would happen off without without our knowledge.

Yeah.

Uh so there is some benefit there.

And then two, I take Zach's point, even like with the garage in the garage door has code requirements, don't they?

Oh, it's self-closing.

Nope.

No, nope, that wouldn't need a permit.

We're just we're looking at egress.

So only if it was a garage door that was completely glass, I guess that's a different story, but it's still.

So it's strictly egress, you're not going to be looking at details of sealing or anything like that.

Um resiting or it's I mean it's gonna be hard to see because we're we're like we are we are trying to make this as easy as we can.

Um so when you when you take a window out and you put the casing in and you know, thin seal around that, yeah, we're not gonna see that.

Um you know, flashing at the top, we'll see that at final inspection, but we won't see the ceiling.

So it's really just here's my window package order, you're checking egress sizes, and here's my door, and then um, don't forget bug screen.

Egress, egress safety factors.

You don't want to get West Nile or whatever.

I mean, this is for your own good.

Oh, I've got on my windows that bug screens on, but not an issue for me.

For the windows doors, is it a rough in and a final inspection or just the final door?

So there's all there's only a rough and inspection if you're changing the size of the opening.

Okay.

So is there a fine?

Because you can put the bug screen.

Yeah.

And someone might come up and say, open a doorway.

You need a permit.

Yeah, you can always be that neighbor that calls it in if you don't see a permit.

Well, flagged.

So to answer your question, just start calling about random house.

The city has a process where if you do something, it should be permanent, it's not, they can go back and say, okay, you have to get inspected, and now you have to pay the permit fees and all that stuff retroactively.

Well, I know everybody in our neighborhood.

I know a lot of people in some neighborhoods that redo the basement.

Yeah, oh, that's pretty small.

You've got a friend.

You know somebody who's done a thing.

I'm just curious because when we go for a walk, it's like, oh, there's a new door.

Yeah, so to be able to issue a stop work order, we have to physically see the work taking place.

Okay.

Um I mean you don't have the staff to be doing it.

So I mean, I guess it's yeah, we really don't.

I mean, we we have some neighbors that that wish we do, uh, because we are complaint-based.

Yeah.

Um but yeah, we sometimes do have to tell them, you know, if you can if you can give us before pictures, um, then maybe there's maybe there's something, but I have met those neighbors.

Yeah.

But yeah, I think there's a double permit, right?

Uh the double department fee.

Yeah, there can be.

Uh normally normally the first stop work order is uh education-based.

Uh we want to we want to bring the the house into compliance and we want to work with people, but then there's also uh you know municipal fine route that we can go with that.

Um not the goal.

Uh it I can tell you if if we don't have time to process all the fire code permits that we have, how in the hell are we gonna have time to take a thousand people to court for not getting a permit?

So uh yeah, it's conversely, we're all being constantly bombarded by Anderson windows ones renewable neighborhood and replace everything.

So they have to go they have to get those permits from you.

So you know that would be.

And do they know about it?

Oh, they know.

Yeah, so we we would plan to re-educate uh the window uh replacement uh Anderson Pella um, I don't know if it's a lot of things.

Um, we would we would look at companies that have pulled you know citing permits in the last six months.

We would send uh an email to their permit staff, and then um we could also do just a basic uh Google search uh window replacement lafayette, and then we could send something to them, and that would be that would be our plan as far as education to the contractors.

Um and most of those contractors, as long as it's a reasonable process, uh have no problem pulling the permits.

Um and then they leave it to the homeowner to schedule the inspection or schedule it uh for a day when the homeowner wants the inspection.

So our our goal is a is the most painless process that we can possibly make.

Um then you know, as as far as fees, I mean it's barely enough for cost recovery.

Uh you know, as far as window replacements and the and the amount of time that we put into it.

For some of these straightforward permits, and that's the one to two-day turnaround.

Is it a flat fee or is it a percent of use in labor?

Or uh like if somebody's replacing the front door to their house and it's a regular you know, 3068, what what would like the permit fee for that be?

Uh we haven't discussed going with a flat fee for window replacements.

Um there is uh there is a ratio where if you're just replacing your door, um you could probably pay a $30 permit fee where our standard flat fee is a hundred dollars.

Uh because thirty thirty dollars doesn't get much as as far as trying to keep the uh building division.

Yeah, it's I mean as far as keeping the building division operations a full dollars.

Half the work is done.

The build the building permit fee handle that the building permit permit fee handles uh reviewing the application, processing the permit, completing the inspection, completing plan review when it's required for uh for smaller permits, for larger permits, there is a plan review fee, and then it also includes uh reasonable amount of inspections.

Um but you know, with with that for people that it abuse that, then we also do have you know per hour uh fees that can be assessed.

But on an on a standard permit, apply for the permit, give us the information we need, we review it, we agree or disagree, send back for uh for revision as as we need and then process the permit once we have the information we need and do one inspection.

It would be the the standard permit fee, which is based on a range table.

Okay.

Was there was there a discussion topic earlier around potentially being more lenient on some of the EV stuff?

Or what what was the I think yeah, I think what they're proposing is more lenient than what what we have now.

And I think it it looks it looks pretty good.

It looks a lot better to me.

Yeah, but my understanding we could went back to the state minimums.

Yeah, we did for now.

Yep, we're at we're at the same minimum, so uh going more lenient on that can't be done in this room.

I think that's a great place to be personally I do not.

Um I am curious to I still am curious if anybody ever is curious and would care to share it with the group what our current utilization rate is.

Not to make a decision based on it.

Well case that I do.

The utilization thing is also tricky because it's such a psychological thing.

Like we overpark everything or most things.

Yes.

They're gone.

Yeah.

You do not have a minimum number of parking to provide.

I was just talking about charging.

Yeah.

I I just I just want to just say how but how would you get utilization statistics?

I mean, you'd have to get that from Excel, and then you're violating whoever's property that happens to be on.

Right?

It's privacy issue.

Yeah.

No, because people are paying for it.

You can like uh Boulder has um you can get the parking data from it doesn't give you identifiers of who's using it, but you can see who's charging you can get charging numbers from boulders you be things.

About how often it's being charged on the city.

We say boulders meaning for the city thing, or I'm talking about these different yeah.

We have these different companies who are requiring that are building a commercial building, right?

Isn't that the information you're looking for?

Yeah, I guess that's where I didn't realize yeah, because City Boulder does owns all of their property.

We have city has some, but not very many.

So we should tell Lafayette to purchase.

That's a fair point.

Yeah.

I guess for the ones that we have, I'm curious what the utilization rates are.

That's fine.

After all of this, are we going to have any recommendations?

We have to thoroughly beat it to death to make sure that there's no ranking.

Yeah, we have to.

Ron said we asked a thousand questions.

We have like 400 still exactly.

I asked all the ones that I had written down.

I just yeah.

You know, I I actually I have one question.

The holy powder requires a permit.

What?

Is it flammable?

Holy power.

Is it flammable powder requires a permit?

It's holy powder.

From the festival of lights that specifically needed to be called out on the code.

Is that that's amazing that's that chalk stuff from the code runs right from the the festival that's just amazing to me that made it into the I mean that's requiring a permit.

That's a pollutant so that's wild.

That's a health safety welfare you know CDP's model rockets.

Exactly.

How dare you display mistakes I'm just impressed by mobile clouds detail immediately put unpermitted holy powder on anybody.

That's a if you if you if you do not want to make a specific recommendation or a specific condition of approval we will definitely convey to city council the fact that you know there are competing competing interests two and a half and oh my gosh.

Yeah.

He's taking good notes like don't exist those he hasn't been jaded from seven yet he still takes those good notes.

He only does every three years so yeah.

I think if there's one recommendation it's getting some getting some data like for instance the energy cost savings that threshold has got to be you know that slope has got to be getting lower and lower as we get these more and more stringent energy costs you know to get down to net zero you know which we all want to get to um but at what at what cost to our other goals um so there's a way that we can kind of see and I don't know where that data comes from.

I know there's a lot we have you have that new position and that's what they're gonna do and studying some of that stuff.

Yep.

Yeah so what is are we getting the are we meeting these other goals in addition to just reducing energy costs, reducing energy costs well um from that I guess is the question around what what's the time for cost recovery?

Yeah.

Well I mean we all we all know it costs more than building a two by four stick frame house with no insulation.

Uh so the question is around how long does it take to get make your money back right so long yeah and you know both but like energy prices get how cheap solar panels get and it depends on you know I I never have had this question answered ten more years here.

How much money does a developer have to make before they stop you know what is that is do they have to make five percent profit as they is it 10% nobody ever says oh yeah that's too expensive.

Why exactly um so I mean I don't think developers really set their costs on like their profit they set their cost based on what is the market's bringing per square foot in the area and in some years that profit's probably quite large and in other years they're going bankrupt.

At least yeah it's tough.

I've never with oh my I've never you know I've heard developers set up and say well if you give me this you know if you if you let me slide on this I'm gonna be able to get the homes you know deliver the homes cheaper now are you really gonna you might go in a a few cents or a few a little bit under the square footage it's getting so your product moves faster but I don't think they are just like the conversation we had regarding Willoughby corner like they had this number that they had to hit to the detriment of every single other thing on the site.

So um what are we uh getting getting that data and tracking that um so we have a clear understanding we like numbers up we like numbers we can handle facts and figures.

Yeah and it's right I've talked to two city council people so far about maybe looking at lowering that mandatory limit from 400 so hopefully they will maybe see that as a vehicle for getting back some diversity.

Yeah um we could lower other things like a profit margin yeah that's like yeah they're supposed to be a good luck um okay if we don't have I I think we've got a lot of feedback I think um I'm glad you say you've enjoyed this conversation because if we don't have any specific recommendations which I I think we've all talked ourselves kind of out of it so um all right um sorry did you want to suggest that like a setback for landscape for flammable material I think that's just a matter of uh sound judgment I don't think that's I don't I don't want to be about it I don't know if there's any place in these codes that we can really do that.

Does the fire code I think there's just a best the wooy code will only cover residential areas that are within this the woo yeah but like but like the international fire code yeah could we use that touching I think there's a best I think there's a best practice but like all things I think if yeah if you're talking single family homes the international fire code doesn't regulate uh single family homes as far as construction yeah okay I think there's the what the best practice so the question would be is it is it an IRC amendment like that would be like something that we as as city you know do you want to have I mean I'm just saying that's that would be the avenue right we're gonna add some like something about landscaping in the IRC.

I think there's the what the best practice.

So the question would be is it an IRC amendment?

Like that would be like something that we as say, you know, do you want to have I mean I'm just saying that's that would be the avenue, right?

We're gonna add some like something about landscaping in the IRC.

Umerous.

Yeah.

I think we go too far.

We're not we're not here in the woo, we're not going to be in the wooy.

It's like it's like banning junipers across the city.

There is a great great idea.

There is a part of the overreact in it is a contextual decision, and people can take the context in which they are located and make a best case decision for themselves.

We cannot broad brush everything.

They're stinky.

They're great in this purpose of which they serve, which is context.

Sorry, Jacob, did you miss your kids' graduation?

Oh no.

That's all right.

Uh if kids are graduate.

Continuation.

Not graduating.

Uh you know, what we when we do adopt the fire code, I think that's a good point.

It's like talking about, you know, or that the wooy code is, you know, maybe we can wrap it in educational component about defensible spaces, and even if you're not within the mapped area, defensible spaces are best practice and make a lot of sense.

And that's something we can relay to fire and and uh uh just something try to keep in mind.

Somehow try to figure out a way to I love an educational campaign.

We do not need to force people to do things.

All right, we'll move on to other business, believe it or not.

Ums department comments.

Yes, sorry.

I think right now.

Reminder myself if you tap my computer's about to die.

Uh here and I can forget my password.

Pressure drop.

All right.

So we well, I'm sure you probably know City Council did approved TED's the other last week two weeks ago.

Uh with the planning commission's recommended conditions on approval and an addition, additional condition of approval about kind of trying to impede pedestrians from crossing the uh crossing the exit aisle, the drive lane.

And then uh the we're not having first meeting in June.

Second meeting, if all goes accordingly, was gonna be uh the land use code.

And we're our plan is to try to get you that code far in advance of you know the typical Thursday or Friday for a normal packet, obviously.

That's that's that was June 10th is out.

I don't have the dates, but yes, the first meeting in June.

So that's right.

Is that correct?

That's the 24th.

Uh and then also if if you guys, as we're getting closer to the summer and we're in the scheduling summer meetings already, if you could send us your summer, any summer vacation plans you have that you are aware of now, we'd appreciate it.

So we can kind of map that out.

Don't want to discourage anybody from doing anything.

We just want to map it out so that when we have applicants coming, we can tell them how many people we are expecting.

Uh two Fridays from now, we uh city council does have planning commissioner interviews.

So we have four four members being interviewed.

So we'll know more about that.

Can we talk about who?

Well, you know two of them.

There will be with uh their information posted.

And that's everything I have on my we're expecting we have a number of projects we think will be ready for July and August.

Uh so hopefully we'll have some site plan and plan architectural reviews uh and things like that coming down.

We have a bunch are kind of right there getting close, but we're also we're leaning into the code right now, so development reviews taking a little bit of a back seat.

We're trying to keep it moving, but prioritize the code.

And we're also adopting a case management software soon that we've Lauren especially has put a lot of work into.

So which one are we it's it's well the gov build, but that's not like they go by now.

Uh it's Gov build and the software companies MCCI uh Colorado municipality.

I love that they've all got Gov in the name.

OpenGov.

We have build code.

Yeah.

So we've got that we've been doing a lot of work on that, a lot of like uh testing the system.

We just gave them a big round of issues we have with it.

They're gonna try to fix those, get it back to us.

We'll be doing some user testing, so we're we have a lot going on.

Is this a relatively large company?

So they'll be in business ten years from now.

You know what I found is that municipalities, yeah.

Yeah, how do I say it?

The market demand for uh uh high quality uh products is maybe not there like it is for the individual uh I mean I guess my experience is all like government software track permit tracking software has always been a little clunky, you know.

Track it wouldn't even have doesn't even have folder mechanisms like the folder system with the and that's a fairly large one.

So uh that's that's all I have.

Okay, question.

It's gone.

Oh, coop two questions about the planning commission interviews.

Is that being broadcast or is that just a lot of things?

No, that doesn't get broadcast.

Okay.

You can come in and watch if you want to.

That was not broadcast.

Not that I'm I don't know.

I don't think I'm going to go.

If you really want to do that, planning commissioner's allowed to just watch.

I do.

They're never thrown me out.

They're afraid to.

Okay.

We have signs so we can like give one to the public comment.

I was sitting right next to Karen Norbeck.

Oh, yeah.

Um we just got a draft um the draft line use code update today.

Can we add comments to that?

I assume we can or we because it's I I added one.

Um, but I'm curious.

Is yours the web-based one?

Um I followed the link at Phil's.

Okay.

Yeah, that Phil sent you.

Yeah.

I think so.

If you can add it, it's the functionality is not turned off.

I just didn't know if you know.

Like we could just keep I mean, people could just keep going if you do that.

Yeah.

You know, one thing that was asked by the app by the consultants of us is whether or not I bring this up because you were asking for the red line version.

The red line version of that apparently, because just they've shifted things around the whole thing.

Yeah.

So is that we were planning on you know, the packet including a clean version that reads well, and then making a red line version available if if desired, I think is kind of where we landed.

That's gonna be hard to do.

I mean, they've got a lot of keynotes that say new, new, new, you know, so that's that's helpful.

Yeah.

I kind of like the red line version.

Yeah, I mean the changes we've been recommending for months slash years.

I would like the red line version.

I mean you don't have it memorized.

Not years.

Like open space, for example.

Do you want us to put do you want us to uh I would like to track the phone?

Is that the first thing on the code?

What open space really is and structurally completely different.

Oh, just use it appropriately.

Code enforcement actions if you use it incorrectly.

I mean, how many of the articles and chapters are are structured the same, right?

It's yeah.

Well, I mean, it's it's not even the I'm not talking about the red line from today's code.

I think that's yeah, that's it's like kind of the red lines, all the red lines from like the first draft that they have provided.

Okay, okay.

And even that though, because just you know, when you when the tracking changes, you put something here and you switch it here, that whole thing redlines then.

So it's it it it leads you to believe that more has been changed than what actually has, just because if you if you rearrange reorganize it, it redlines the whole area you reorganized.

Because like I know there was uh I believe some conversation about the commercial in the N2 zone, and you know, now it's not shown, and so I'm curious where that's landing, or is that still a point of retention?

Uh I believe the neighborhood commercial for like if the ability to put it in existing neighborhoods has been removed.

Uh the neighborhood commercial for new residential, I believe is still on the table.

Uh missing middle housing, I think was with the guidance we were given with the last update was to keep that.

We put some criteria around it about on-street parking, sidewalks, things like that.

I don't know what exactly.

Uh and then there was one other I thought there was one other kind of the height, I think, is also like something that I think we were directed uh to look at that differently and and for the most part kind of keep the 35 feet with the with some uh height exception process and then the what's being talked about sales like how do we treat PUDs that have been given height allowances?

Do those go away, or do we keep those?

So that's so I think yeah, having a red line showing that uh iteration, that would be nice.

This is why I like the red line.

Yeah, yeah.

I want to see the evolution of it since I haven't been here for the whole time for the process for me, seeing how that has evolved.

I would find useful to help go.

So I will I will convey that to have a good point there, Jake.

So with if on a PUD you'd give it a height exception.

That height exception stays with the PUD unless you get a new cloud.

I mean, you're just yeah, but I'm just thinking so so if somebody comes in, you know.

I mean, it's no different than when we rezoned old town down from 27 or 2035 to 24.

What you know any kind of citywide rezoning, take certain rights away and grab certain rights.

No, no, I'm PUD specifically the height.

But with the PUDs, the PUDs of what we're struggling with is the PUDs we want to go away.

Right.

Uh so but do we leave some of those rights with them?

Uh but from a land use perspective, we want to make sure that the P the the PUDs from a land use perspective, they're not uh you know, they don't rule on terms of land use because then we're not uh implementing our future land use plan in our comprehensive plan.

So uh I don't that's these are conversations still be had, these will be obviously highlighted uh in terms of the other.

But I mean I mean that's you just open up something we've never thought of before, which is okay.

So you know, somebody gets a P we date D, they do X 20 years later it gets torn down.

Yeah, shouldn't we maybe have something place that says at that point the PUD is revoked?

That's a good question.

Or just a P or does the height run with the land.

No, but I mean that's what I'm saying.

I mean, should we have a process that we don't we don't say it stays until you put another PUD?

We have we are we uh we have been having these discussions.

We've been meeting with legal and our clarion, our consultants, and we will have direction on where we think we should go with that.

Okay.

But yeah, there's certain properties like we don't want to make the hospital non conforming.

You know, we don't want to say you're 35 foot height limit.

By the way, uh quiz questions.

Anyone know what the PUD granted the hospital for maximum height?

Oh god, eighty feet.

What was it?

It was huge.

This is so funny.

I knew it was up there.

Half quiz.

All right.

Um there's no further comments.

I make a motion to adjourn.

All in fair.

We're adjourned.

Thank you all.